PDA

View Full Version : WOW - 12-year-old speak out on abortion



PoliCon
02-27-2009, 09:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOR1wUqvJS4

FlaGator
02-27-2009, 10:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOR1wUqvJS4

Potential doesn't matter. The mother's choice is all that counts </wilbur>

PoliCon
02-27-2009, 10:40 AM
Being proabortion is a learned behavior. The natural inclination is to protect life. You have to be taught to devalue it.

wilbur
02-27-2009, 11:28 AM
Being proabortion is a learned behavior. The natural inclination is to protect life. You have to be taught to devalue it.

Interesting theory. So you are saying we should follow all of our instincts, with no thought or reason to guide them? And people say its the "evolutionists" who teach us to act like animals.... ;)

PoliCon
02-27-2009, 11:41 AM
Interesting theory. So you are saying we should follow all of our instincts, with no thought or reason to guide them? And people say its the "evolutionists" who teach us to act like animals.... ;)

yes wilbur you dumbass that's exactly what I am saying. :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-27-2009, 12:30 PM
yes wilbur you dumbass that's exactly what I am saying. :rolleyes:

Just verifying... your words did imply as much... that "learned" is somehow bad, or less good than "instinct".

PoliCon
02-27-2009, 12:32 PM
change=/=progress despite what you on the left like to believe.

wilbur
02-27-2009, 12:37 PM
change=/=progress despite what you on the left like to believe.

It seems you are having an imaginary conversation with someone else... this is irrelevant...

and I have never said change is synonymous with "progress".... nor would I ever.

FlaGator
02-27-2009, 12:43 PM
Interesting theory. So you are saying we should follow all of our instincts, with no thought or reason to guide them? And people say its the "evolutionists" who teach us to act like animals.... ;)

How is protecting human life acting like an animal? I am most interested in hearing this...

wilbur
02-27-2009, 12:48 PM
How is protecting human life acting like an animal? I am most interested in hearing this...

It's not. But he justified it by saying it was a 'natural inclination'.




He must also believe homosexuality is wonderful!




I would also love to see what his instincts tell him if I gave him a line-up of embryo's to choose from.. one being human, the rest being some other animal.. what would his 'natural inclinations' do to guide him then? :)

FlaGator
02-27-2009, 12:52 PM
It's not. But he justified it by saying it was a 'natural inclination'.




He must also believe homosexuality is wonderful!




I would also love to see what his instincts tell him if I gave him a line-up of embryo's to choose from.. one being human, the rest being some other animal.. what would his 'natural inclinations' do to guide him then? :)

I guess that would depend on the age of the embryo...

Also the jury is still out on how natural homosexuality is. The nature / nurture debate hasn't been settled just yet. If homosexuality is genetic in nature then it must be a mutation of an existing gene otherwise, with the exception of humans, it would remove itself from the gene pool by the host not mating with the proper sex.

wilbur
02-27-2009, 01:05 PM
I guess that would depend on the age of the embryo...

Also the jury is still out on how natural homosexuality is. The nature / nurture debate hasn't been settled just yet.

So animals in the wild are "taught" homosexuality?



If homosexuality is genetic in nature then it must be a mutation of an existing gene otherwise, with the exception of humans, it would remove itself from the gene pool by the host not mating with the proper sex.

Not really.. there are many things that could allow a trait like that to survive in the gene pool. Mendelian squares don't suffice anymore.. things are a lot messier than that.

FlaGator
02-27-2009, 01:11 PM
So animals in the wild are "taught" homosexuality?



Not really.. there are many things that could allow a trait like that to survive in the gene pool. Mendelian squares don't suffice anymore.. things are a lot messier than that.

Did I say that? I said that genetic mutations could be responsible. An genetic mutation that enhances the survivability of the species is a genetic benefit but one that deters procreation is a genetic flaw. Flaws may occur naturally but that doesn't make them progressive. It makes them genetic errors.

wilbur
02-27-2009, 05:24 PM
Did I say that? I said that genetic mutations could be responsible. An genetic mutation that enhances the survivability of the species is a genetic benefit but one that deters procreation is a genetic flaw. Flaws may occur naturally but that doesn't make them progressive. It makes them genetic errors.

Either way, I don't really think this affects what I said. So what if homosexuality is caused by some genetic mutation?

You mean to say we should consider it as a genetic disorder, such as cystic fibrosis... so that it becomes a 'natural inclination' for which a cure should be sought?

In that case, I submit to Policon's assertion that pro-life is a 'natural inclination'... but as you and Policon both point out... 'natural inclinations' arent always "progressive"... so it follows "pro-life" might be a condition for which we should seek a cure. Luckily there is one available... its called reason. ;)

PoliCon
02-27-2009, 06:11 PM
That's some great circular logic there. Of course that's what we come to expect from the left . . .

FlaGator
02-27-2009, 06:20 PM
Either way, I don't really think this affects what I said. So what if homosexuality is caused by some genetic mutation?

You mean to say we should consider it as a genetic disorder, such as cystic fibrosis... so that it becomes a 'natural inclination' for which a cure should be sought?

In that case, I submit to Policon's assertion that pro-life is a 'natural inclination'... but as you and Policon both point out... 'natural inclinations' arent always "progressive"... so it follows "pro-life" might be a condition for which we should seek a cure. Luckily there is one available... its called reason. ;)

Actually reason would dictate the continuance of the species. It is irrationality leads someone to consider child sacrifice for the sake of some future blissful life.

You can't even argue that homosexuality is natural. Just because it occasionally happens in nature doesn't make desired human behavior. A whole species that became devoutly homosexual would cease to be a species. Perhaps one day you will evolve some human compassion and sensibilities.

FlaGator
02-27-2009, 06:21 PM
That's some great circular logic there. Of course that's what we come to expect from the left . . .

Exactly... :D

wilbur
02-27-2009, 06:46 PM
Actually reason would dictate the continuance of the species. It is irrationality leads someone to consider child sacrifice for the sake of some future blissful life.


'Fitness' is relative to the environment.... Seeing as how homosexuals do seem to desire children and can actually breed (if they choose), there might actually be a fitness advantage under some circumstances... since they can satisfy their desires for partnership without risking accidental pregnancy. Should we face a future as envisioned by Malthus, it could conceivably be an advantage.



You can't even argue that homosexuality is natural. Just because it occasionally happens in nature doesn't make desired human behavior.


Again, I submit to the logic that if pro-life is a 'natural inclination' that it is by no means necessarily desirable... hence we should seek a cure. A species that values single cell organisms beyond that of a live human being may not be fit for survival... at least not a prosperous one.


A whole species that became devoutly homosexual would cease to be a species. Perhaps one day you will evolve some human compassion and sensibilities.

I have it... you have fallen for the biggest lies in the book that make you mistake hate and bigotry for compassion. ;)

wilbur
02-27-2009, 06:47 PM
That's some great circular logic there. Of course that's what we come to expect from the left . . .

I don't think you know what circular logic is... the term gets misused a lot around here.

I was simply using your own logic against you.

FlaGator
02-27-2009, 06:56 PM
I just don't see how you can even attempt to justify the ending of a life for the sake of expedience and convenience. You seem to want to view humans at the same level as the lesser animals. A male lion who takes over a pride will kill the cubs of the previous leader for the sake of promoting his genetic line. You promote the killing of human life for the sake of convenience. To live with this you've convinced yourself that it is not as human your killing but something non-human and you use science to justify and validate your beliefs. A misuse of science...

PoliCon
02-27-2009, 07:28 PM
I just don't see how you can even attempt to justify the ending of a life for the sake of expedience and convenience. You seem to want to view humans at the same level as the lesser animals. A male lion who takes over a pride will kill the cubs of the previous leader for the sake of promoting his genetic line. You promote the killing of human life for the sake of convenience. To live with this you've convinced yourself that it is not as human your killing but something non-human and you use science to justify and validate your beliefs. A misuse of science...

bullshit - he sees us as less than animals - at least children are. :mad:

wilbur
02-28-2009, 11:49 AM
I just don't see how you can even attempt to justify the ending of a life for the sake of expedience and convenience. You seem to want to view humans at the same level as the lesser animals. A male lion who takes over a pride will kill the cubs of the previous leader for the sake of promoting his genetic line.

Well I really wasnt trying to have the abortion conversation again.... I'm right, you're wrong, and the world agrees with me on this one... thats about all there is to say about it anymore;)

My comments in this thread have been about the logic of "pro-abortion is a learned behavior, pro-life is simply natural inclination (allegedly)" and the implied conclusion that "therefore pro-life is better".

X is a learned behavior
Y is a natural inclination
Therefore, Y is better than X

Obviously nonsense.

PoliCon
02-28-2009, 01:25 PM
because learning to dealue human life is of course far superior to the natural instinct to preserve it . . . . :rolleyes:

Mythic
02-28-2009, 07:42 PM
Again, I submit to the logic that if pro-life is a 'natural inclination' that it is by no means necessarily desirable... hence we should seek a cure.
This whole natural inclination argument is ridiculous no matter what side anyone is standing on. But let me point out the difference between a "natural inclination to homosexuality" and a "natural inclination to protect a fetus".
First of all homosexuality is not just some variation like brown or blue eyes. It is either a mental disorder developed in life or a genetic disorder. What else could it be? The whole purpose of opposite-sex attraction from a scientific perspective is to further the population of a species. Why would it be natural for an animal human or not to have attraction for the same sex? It would not be able to procreate with the same sex.

You are playing with the definition of natural. I do not think that it is "natural" for a person to be homosexual. If you say that it is, then the opposite of being heterosexual must be unnatural, which obviously makes no sense.

If humans naturally wanted to protect a growing baby they would be allowing for the furthering of their race. If humans were naturally homosexual they would not.


A species that values single cell organisms beyond that of a live human being may not be fit for survival... at least not a prosperous one.

By single celled organisms do you mean a human fetus? If so you are incorrect. We do not value the life of a fetus more than a grown person. They have the same worth. Both human. Without that single celled organism there is no species. Not that hard to understand.

Mythic
02-28-2009, 07:49 PM
And I loved that girl's speech. It was excellent. She spoke better than most politicians in Washington. I loved her quote at the ending too, it added a nice touch :).

wilbur
02-28-2009, 10:58 PM
This whole natural inclination argument is ridiculous no matter what side anyone is standing on. But let me point out the difference between a "natural inclination to homosexuality" and a "natural inclination to protect a fetus".
First of all homosexuality is not just some variation like brown or blue eyes. It is either a mental disorder developed in life or a genetic disorder.
What else could it be? The whole purpose of opposite-sex attraction from a scientific perspective is to further the population of a species. Why would it be natural for an animal human or not to have attraction for the same sex? It would not be able to procreate with the same sex.

You are playing with the definition of natural. I do not think that it is "natural" for a person to be homosexual. If you say that it is, then the opposite of being heterosexual must be unnatural, which obviously makes no sense.


That makes no sense. It doesnt follow at all that if one is natural, the other must then be 'unnatural' by default.

I'm not playing with the definition of natural at all. You are twisting it to align with your moral view.. just like Policon. When you say 'natural' its meant to mean that 'its the way its supposed to be according to some unquestionable authority' or something like that. A disguise for an empty, meaningless platitude and bankrupt belief.

And if you consider homosexuality a 'disorder'... well whatever, it doesn't matter. Policon opens the door to all kinds of silliness.... genetic disorders are natural, and by his rationale, we should consider them wonderful... along with homosexuality.

We are naturally inclined to have genetic disorders.
Cures and treatments for genetic disorders are learned.
Therefore genetic disorders are better.

Mythic
03-01-2009, 12:10 AM
That makes no sense. It doesnt follow at all that if one is natural, the other must then be 'unnatural' by default.

There are multiple definitions of natural and it is not a good word to use to illustrate the point that is trying to be made.
"based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind"
"having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature"
Normal would be a better word. Normal is actually a synomym of natural. The definition that is meant by people having a natural want to protect children is that it is normal/natural for people to want to help protect their children, but it is not normal for people to want to kill their children. That is all the point is. How homosexuality got into this I don't know. It is not normal/natural for a person to be homosexual. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual just as there is nothing wrong with having other mental/genetic disorders. It is normal to be heterosexual. That was my point.


I'm not playing with the definition of natural at all. You are twisting it to align with your moral view.. just like Policon. When you say 'natural' its meant to mean that 'its the way its supposed to be according to some unquestionable authority' or something like that. A disguise for an empty, meaningless platitude and bankrupt belief.

By playing with the definition I meant that you were interpreting the normal definition of natural to mean something more along the lines of occuring in nature. Not everything that occurs in nature is normal.
Natural is meant to mean that "it is the way it is supposed to be according to NATURE." According to what is logical. It is not logical to make homosexuality normal because the natural purpose of sex (before humans decided to create ways to prevent the child) is to procreate. Homosexuals cannot have children together.


And if you consider homosexuality a 'disorder'... well whatever, it doesn't matter. Policon opens the door to all kinds of silliness.... genetic disorders are natural, and by his rationale, we should consider them wonderful... along with homosexuality.

Genetic disorders are not wonderful. People with genetic disorders can be wonderful but the disorders are obviously not.


We are naturally inclined to have genetic disorders.
Cures and treatments for genetic disorders are learned.
Therefore genetic disorders are better.
Again, the normal definition is what was meant. The "occuring in nature" definition is the one you are using. It is abnormal to have a genetic disorder (abnormal is synonymous with unnatural)
To fix this abnormality cures and treatments for genetic disorders are learned.

wilbur
03-01-2009, 12:56 AM
By playing with the definition I meant that you were interpreting the normal definition of natural to mean something more along the lines of occuring in nature. Not everything that occurs in nature is normal.
Natural is meant to mean that "it is the way it is supposed to be according to NATURE."

Ok.....



According to what is logical. It is not logical to make homosexuality normal because the natural purpose of sex (before humans decided to create ways to prevent the child) is to procreate.
Homosexuals cannot have children together.


So not just anything should be considered be normal just because it is natural, but we shouldn't consider homosexuality normal because it goes against the natural purpose of sex. Come again? You are doing exactly what I pointed out... again... appealing to nature to justify your moral norms.... and arbitrarily singling out what you don't want to accept... and pretending it has to be that way by authority of nature (ie. "the natural purposes of sex" is X... therefore any other use is not normal").

The purpose of eating is simply to continue living. But we have many other purposes for it as well... such as bonding and pleasure, etc. Sex is no different.



Again, the normal definition is what was meant. The "occuring in nature" definition is the one you are using. It is abnormal to have a genetic disorder (abnormal is synonymous with unnatural)
To fix this abnormality cures and treatments for genetic disorders are learned.

Thats not how it was used in its original context. It was used as "what occurs naturally as a default state" vs "what is learned".

In the end anyways... the whole line of reasoning started by Policon fails spectacularly on another level. It really isn't a natural inclination to value microscopic organisms over that of more mature human beings. It has to be TAUGHT, indoctrinated, brainwashed, to believe otherwise.

A building is in flames.... you, a stranger who needs your help to escape, and a case of hundreds of frozen embryos are inside. You only have time to save the person OR the embryos, but not both. Who do you save? I will have to laugh (or possibly cry) at any person here whose 'natural inclination' would be to save the embryos and let the person burn to death. But if you hold to the courage of your convictions, that's exactly what you should do.

PoliCon
03-01-2009, 12:58 AM
Wilbur has his head so far up his own ass - he can see his own tonsils. :rolleyes: I point out that disregard for human life must be TAUGHT and he spins a web trying to make it mean anything else other than what was stated. Typical fucking leftist tactics. :rolleyes:

wilbur
03-01-2009, 01:15 AM
Wilbur has his head so far up his own ass - he can see his own tonsils. :rolleyes: I point out that disregard for human life must be TAUGHT and he spins a web trying to make it mean anything else other than what was stated. Typical fucking leftist tactics. :rolleyes:

Well no.. in so many words, what you tried to do was justify pro-life by saying it was 'natural'.. and demonize pro-choice by saying its 'against nature'. You said it, not me. I'm just having a little fun belaboring on about how daft that was ;)

PoliCon
03-01-2009, 01:43 AM
Well no.. in so many words, what you tried to do was justify pro-life by saying it was 'natural'.. and demonize pro-choice by saying its 'against nature'. You said it, not me. I'm just having a little fun belaboring on about how daft that was ;)

what I tried to do was exactly what I did and said - we have to be TAUGHT to devalue human life. You wanted it to be something else - your fault not mine. Now - kindly go back to the DU and bray with the rest of the jackasses.

Mythic
03-01-2009, 02:21 AM
A building is in flames.... you, a stranger who needs your help to escape, and a case of hundreds of frozen embryos are inside. You only have time to save the person OR the embryos, but not both.
LOL! That kind of stuff happens everyday. Let me put this situation before you.

You are playing a new game show. There are two stalls, one with an embryo and one with a fully grown adult. In the future the fully grown adult will become a mass murderer and kill 100 embryos and two people in a building caught on fire. The embyro will grow up to be a great leader and eventually president who will stop the world from ending. Somehow you know these two potentials. You know what will become of the man and you know what will become of the embryo. But the game show has a catch. You have to kill one of them in order to win. Who will you kill? The potential murderer or the potential savior?

I just made that up in 2 minutes. That type of hypothetical argument cannot be used to prove a point.
To answer your question, I would have the man save the embryos and then I would save the man. You never said that the man couldn't save anyone else, you only said he couldn't save himself. So everyone lives. :rolleyes: But all of my jokes aside (please dont reply to the above situation lol)


Say that instead of embryos there were 100 other people in that building. The man is actually a woman in this case. That woman is the one you love more than anyone else. You cannot stop thinking of her, and you want to spend your entire life with her. Nobody knows there is a fire. A party is going on on the west side of the building with the 100 people. The woman you love is on the opposite side of the building. The fire will consume both of the sides shortly and you will only be able to warn one group before it is too late. You can only save that woman or the 100 other people. Who would you save? Would you save 100 lives you do not know, or the one woman you love most in the world?

wilbur
03-01-2009, 03:15 AM
Say that instead of embryos there were 100 other people in that building. The man is actually a woman in this case. That woman is the one you love more than anyone else. You cannot stop thinking of her, and you want to spend your entire life with her. Nobody knows there is a fire. A party is going on on the west side of the building with the 100 people. The woman you love is on the opposite side of the building. The fire will consume both of the sides shortly and you will only be able to warn one group before it is too late. You can only save that woman or the 100 other people. Who would you save? Would you save 100 lives you do not know, or the one woman you love most in the world?

I'd be naturally inclined to save the woman. I don't think a little self interest is a bad thing... where we tend to prefer saving loved ones and family members as opposed to strangers, who may be able to fend for themselves. Doesnt resolve anything for you in the first scenario though... where both the embryos and the other are equally unknown to you.

How bout a hostage situation with one human person hostage and a human embryo.... which one do you try to secure release for first? The embryo? Why or why not?

Situations may sound ridiculous, but they aren't impossible.... and the whole life begins at conception idea really begs these sorts of questions. You can't answer them without saying obviously crazy things... things which do obviously run counter to any natural inclination any average person would have... things which are the logical conclusions of the life begins at conception principle. A certain radio personality some may identify with has a phrase for this sort of thing.... Demonstrate absurdity by being absurd. ;)

Mythic
03-01-2009, 04:26 PM
I'd be naturally inclined to save the woman. I don't think a little self interest is a bad thing... where we tend to prefer saving loved ones and family members as opposed to strangers, who may be able to fend for themselves. Doesnt resolve anything for you in the first scenario though... where both the embryos and the other are equally unknown to you.

I would save the woman too. And I would also save the man, and not the embryos. Why? Because that would be my natural impulse. For the situation with the woman, having a natural impulse to save her does not make the other 100 people not human or worthy of life. I would choose to save the man, but the embryos are still just as worthy to have life. I would save the man because he may have a wife. He has parents. He is already part of a family and is already loved by at least two people. He may have friends and coworkers and be connected to so many other people. The embryos do not personally know anyone.

But no matter what happens, the 100 embryos are still just as human as the 100 people.

Abortion is not similar to this situation. In the situation, either the embryos die or the man dies. During a pregnacny a woman will not die. If she gives birth nobody will die. But the abortion will kill someone. The child will die. The mother will not die if the child lives. That is the key difference. Most people would save a human life over the life of an embryo. But it is wrong to kill an embryo because a mother does not feel like having a child.


How bout a hostage situation with one human person hostage and a human embryo.... which one do you try to secure release for first? The embryo? Why or why not?
I believe that the embryo should stay in the mothers body. All of these situations you are putting before me would never happen if a pregnancy was allowed to run its course naturally. What about a hostage situation with one human adult and one human infant? Both strangers to you? Who would you save first? The infant or the adult? Answer that question. But also answer your own. Why would you save the embryo or the hostage adult over the other?

biccat
03-01-2009, 05:10 PM
Well I really wasnt trying to have the abortion conversation again.... I'm right, you're wrong, and the world agrees with me on this one... thats about all there is to say about it anymore;)
How do you figure the world is with you?

Here's information on abortion laws by country. (http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.jsp)
Here's the world population by country. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population) (Yeah, it's Wikipedia, but it's in an excel-ready format)

Do the math, 3.9 billion people live in countries that prohibit abortion on demand. 2.8 billion live in countries that allow some form of abortion on demand. Cut out non-democracies where people have no choice and it becomes even more lopsided, since India doesn't allow abortion on demand while China does.

By country, 137 prohibit abortion on demand while only 61 allow some form of abortion on demand.


Obviously nonsense.
Obviously.

wilbur
03-01-2009, 09:08 PM
I would save the woman too. And I would also save the man, and not the embryos. Why? Because that would be my natural impulse. For the situation with the woman, having a natural impulse to save her does not make the other 100 people not human or worthy of life. I would choose to save the man, but the embryos are still just as worthy to have life. I would save the man because he may have a wife. He has parents. He is already part of a family and is already loved by at least two people. He may have friends and coworkers and be connected to so many other people. The embryos do not personally know anyone.

Perhaps if you continue with this train of thought, you will also conclude that the man actually has feelings, various capacities etc... and many of the other things we have discussed at length in other threads... while the embryo's do not. So you make a judgement call on value.. one that leads to to say that hundreds of frozen embryos are less valuable than a single solitary person... even though, in the grand scheme of things, practicality would generally lead us to all try and save the most lives we possibly can.. absent any other information to guide or choice.

So you chose one life over hundreds of lives... because you don't consider them of the same worth.

I did find the comment about embryo's "not knowing anyone" rather funny. Of course they don't. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to.



Abortion is not similar to this situation. In the situation, either the embryos die or the man dies. During a pregnacny a woman will not die.


I don't think its as far off as you say... the two can be very close actually. A single mother in poverty may very well may not even be able to shoulder the burden carrying a pregnancy to term without risking the well being of her other living child. Those women DO have to make a choice like my imagined scenario. Something to think about.



I believe that the embryo should stay in the mothers body. All of these situations you are putting before me would never happen if a pregnancy was allowed to run its course naturally. What about a hostage situation with one human adult and one human infant? Both strangers to you? Who would you save first? The infant or the adult? Answer that question. But also answer your own. Why would you save the embryo or the hostage adult over the other?

It would be a flip of the coin.. I'd save who I have the best chance to save, between an infant and a grown person. I would never save embryo's over a living person... it would be quite a reprehensible thing to do.... and I think even most pro-lifers would agree that someone who would is deserving of a straight jacket... further illustrating the pitiful incoherence of the pro-life philosophy.

But the situation I described could actually happen at one of the various fertility clinics or labs around the country that conduct embryonic research.

movie buff
03-01-2009, 09:23 PM
Great speech!
Was that the same speech/ video that they had to make unable to accept any more comments for, after so many of the comments came from crude, hateful, lefty pigs who slung insults and obscenities at the girl because they had no intelligent refutations for her great arguments?

CorwinK
03-01-2009, 10:28 PM
Well I really wasnt trying to have the abortion conversation again.... I'm right, you're wrong, and the world agrees with me on this one... thats about all there is to say about it anymore;)


How can you even begin to justify that statement. If the world agrees with you then there wouldn't be an argument about this particular issue in the first place.

The fact of the matter is that every woman on earth is Pro-Choice. My mother CHOSE to not have me killed, and everyone who is reading this thread has that mark in common with me. If you, as a woman, CHOOSE to have an abortion you have killed, according to the following definition.

Kill
1. to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Kill


Life
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Life

Seeing as one cell organisms are considered life, that includes the moment that egg is fertilized and becomes a one cell organism.


If you CHOOSE to kill your unborn child (because that one cell organism in your womb will eventually become a human, or a human mutant, or what have you) then you CHOOSE to commit murder.

Murder
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Murder



There it is...black in white with references from a neutral site. You can dispute the murder aspect all you want,(rape, incest, the fact that the embryo isn't a full grown human, whatever) but the fact remains that according to the definition of life and the definition of kill, abortion is killing, period.

PoliCon
03-02-2009, 12:01 AM
The world also thinks that rape, incest, and the life of the mother account for a large portion if not a majority of abortions when in fact they combined account for less than 10%.

wilbur
03-02-2009, 12:20 AM
Murder
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Murder


Are you a pro-lifer who would bring women up on murder charges for having an abortion or taking the morning after pill? I'd love to hear the other pro-lifers who don't advocate that course of action really debate this point with someone of that view... its a debate that needs to happen, since they all piggy back on the extreme murder rhetoric that Corwin is using.... and really fight for it... then backpedal when punishments are discussed.



There it is...black in white with references from a neutral site. You can dispute the murder aspect all you want,(rape, incest, the fact that the embryo isn't a full grown human, whatever) but the fact remains that according to the definition of life and the definition of kill, abortion is killing, period.

Thats always a particularly weak equivocation, every time....

I kill blades of grass and probably some bugs when I walk through the grass. I kill skin cells if I take a swab of the inside of my mouth. Not all killing is created equal, or even wrong. And the law doesn't use your definition of 'human life'.

Mythic
03-02-2009, 09:59 PM
Perhaps if you continue with this train of thought, you will also conclude that the man actually has feelings, various capacities etc... and many of the other things we have discussed at length in other threads... while the embryo's do not. So you make a judgement call on value.. one that leads to to say that hundreds of frozen embryos are less valuable than a single solitary person... even though, in the grand scheme of things, practicality would generally lead us to all try and save the most lives we possibly can.. absent any other information to guide or choice.
Where was that practicality when you saved your true love over the 100 full living people? Why would people choose the living grown person over the developing embryo? You conclude that it is because the embryo has less worth. But that is not true. Can you conclude that the 100 people in the room are of less worth than the woman? You did not. The woman was just of more worth to YOU. People are more likely to save what is familiar to them. Embyros do not look human and are not as developed so the selfishness in people will choose a more alike fully grown adult over a more alien developing embryo. But both the grown adult and the developing embryo are of equal worth.

Lets take one more situation. Say there are 100 pregnant women who you do not know in one room and 100 people who are not pregnant and who you also do not know in the other. Who would you save in that case?


So you chose one life over hundreds of lives... because you don't consider them of the same worth. Again, they are of the same worth. If I were to choose the 100 embryos that would not make a fully grown person of less worth.


I did find the comment about embryo's "not knowing anyone" rather funny. Of course they don't. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to.
That was actually exactly my point. Which is why people would think of saving someone who is known over a bunch who are not. Like that woman you love in the building. You know her more than all of the other people in the other room. She may be the only one you know. So you save her.




I don't think its as far off as you say... the two can be very close actually. A single mother in poverty may very well may not even be able to shoulder the burden carrying a pregnancy to term without risking the well being of her other living child. Those women DO have to make a choice like my imagined scenario. Something to think about.
Wrong. If the woman goes through with the pregnancy she will not die like the man in your scenario. Let me compare the results of both options of your little scenario.
1. You choose the man. The man lives, the 100 embryos die.
2. You choose the embryos. The embryos live, the man dies.
Someone dies in each one.
But abortion is entirely different.
1. Woman gets abortion. Baby dies, woman lives.
2. Woman gives birth. Baby lives, woman lives.
In only one option someone dies. In the other option both live.
That is a big difference that you seem not to see.
If the mother cannot support the child then she can give it up for adoption. If the mother did not want a child in the first place she shouldn't have had sex. And don't bother to bring up rape or any time of forced sex. That is only 1% of pregnancies.




It would be a flip of the coin.. I'd save who I have the best chance to save, between an infant and a grown person. I would never save embryo's over a living person... it would be quite a reprehensible thing to do.... and I think even most pro-lifers would agree that someone who would is deserving of a straight jacket... further illustrating the pitiful incoherence of the pro-life philosophy.
Luckily being Pro-Life is not choosing embryos over a living person. It is choosing the life of both over the death of one.


But the situation I described could actually happen at one of the various fertility clinics or labs around the country that conduct embryonic research.

I believe that the embryo should stay in the mothers body. All of these situations you are putting before me would never happen if a pregnancy was allowed to run its course naturally

CorwinK
03-02-2009, 10:34 PM
Are you a pro-lifer who would bring women up on murder charges for having an abortion or taking the morning after pill? I'd love to hear the other pro-lifers who don't advocate that course of action really debate this point with someone of that view... its a debate that needs to happen, since they all piggy back on the extreme murder rhetoric that Corwin is using.... and really fight for it... then backpedal when punishments are discussed.



Thats always a particularly weak equivocation, every time....

I kill blades of grass and probably some bugs when I walk through the grass. I kill skin cells if I take a swab of the inside of my mouth. Not all killing is created equal, or even wrong. And the law doesn't use your definition of 'human life'.

As I stated...if you read the entire post...you can debate the murder issue all you want...but you cannot deny that abortion is killing, the deprivation of life. If you don't have an issue with that then so be it, at least admit it, don't try to state that you care about human life yet support someones right to choose to end it. Try to deny that fact and you prove to all that you are not worth debating on this subject due to your inability to acknowledge simple fact.

How is using black and white a weak equivocation? seeing as equivocation means

1. the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, esp. in order to mislead or hedge; prevarication.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equivocation

And a dictionary definition is in no way ambiguous (the very definition of the word definition is the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear) how in the world can you yet again, justify your statement? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definition

Please, for the love of whoever or whatever you hold holy, tell me that you actually look up the big words you use in these posts? I'm not afraid to admit that if i'm not sure about what i'm saying, I look it up to avoid looking like a jackass, believe it or not, a little thought into your statements before making them will take you a long way in life.

Mythic
03-02-2009, 10:58 PM
This whole abortion argument always gets so blown up but the main point is:
A human embryo is a human life. All human life is sacred and has the right to live the moment it is created (conception). Thus abortion is wrong, because it ends human life.

Insects are not humans.

Human skin cells are not humans.

Human embryos are humans.

All of the issues of personhood and having a brain are not strong arguments at all. Even if the embryo has not developed these things yet it is STILL a human life. That is all that matters. Plus, the embryo will develop all of those traits later as an embryo is the developing stage of human life.

PoliCon
03-02-2009, 11:03 PM
This whole abortion argument always gets so blown up but the main point is:
A human embryo is a human life. All human life is sacred and has the right to live the moment it is created (conception). Thus abortion is wrong, because it ends human life.

Insects are not humans.

Human skin cells are not humans.

Human embryos are humans.

All of the issues of personhood and having a brain are not strong arguments at all. Even if the embryo has not developed these things yet it is STILL a human life. That is all that matters. Plus, the embryo will develop all of those traits later as an embryo is the developing stage of human life.

An embryo within it's make up has what is required to be a complete independent human life. Skin cells do not.

wilbur
03-02-2009, 11:14 PM
Where was that practicality when you saved your true love over the 100 full living people? Why would people choose the living grown person over the developing embryo? You conclude that it is because the embryo has less worth. But that is not true. Can you conclude that the 100 people in the room are of less worth than the woman? You did not.

Your examples simply become irrelevant when you start adding other contingencies like emotional attachments and relationships. Of course people have biases for those they are attached to.... the question is what do you do when there is no attachment and why?

All other factors being equal, you do not consider the embryos as relevant or important as a living person when forced to make a choice.... in part because of their ability to actually interact with the world and form relationships. You sympathize with this, and consider it of value. This speaks to the points about capacities that I have made in other threads.



Lets take one more situation. Say there are 100 pregnant women who you do not know in one room and 100 people who are not pregnant and who you also do not know in the other. Who would you save in that case?


Another flip of the coin... although I'd probably be biased towards the pregnant women, just because there are certain to be some late term women with actual human beings inside them.



Wrong. If the woman goes through with the pregnancy she will not die like the man in your scenario. Let me compare the results of both options of your little scenario.
1. You choose the man. The man lives, the 100 embryos die.
2. You choose the embryos. The embryos live, the man dies.
Someone dies in each one.
But abortion is entirely different.
1. Woman gets abortion. Baby dies, woman lives.
2. Woman gives birth. Baby lives, woman lives.


You ignored the part where I talked about a single mother in poverty feeling like she had to choose between being able to care for her living child, and the potential one. Like you in the burning building, she might decide to choose the living child. That situation is very similar.... and a very common one for women who receive abortions.



In only one option someone dies. In the other option both live.
That is a big difference that you seem not to see.
If the mother cannot support the child then she can give it up for adoption. If the mother did not want a child in the first place she shouldn't have had sex.


And we should just let drunk drivers who wrap their cars around telephone polls die in the streets. This personal responsibility kick is still a losing argument.



And don't bother to bring up rape or any time of forced sex. That is only 1% of pregnancies.


I only bring up rape if someone else does.



Luckily being Pro-Life is not choosing embryos over a living person. It is choosing the life of both over the death of one.

Actually, pro-life as a political movement (as in working to outlaw abortion) is totalitarian... moralistic bullies... myopically, militantly and belligerently interfering with profound philosophical choices in the lives of others... all when the movement can't even remotely justify their position in any way. I actually have nothing to say against anyone who finds abortion to be wrong and chooses never to have one... I have quite a lot more to say against others who attempt to assault the freedom of others through the rule of law. They have a word for that. It's "evil".

wilbur
03-02-2009, 11:18 PM
This whole abortion argument always gets so blown up but the main point is:
A human embryo is a human life. All human life is sacred and has the right to live the moment it is created (conception). Thus abortion is wrong, because it ends human life.

Insects are not humans.

Human skin cells are not humans.

Human embryos are humans.

All of the issues of personhood and having a brain are not strong arguments at all. Even if the embryo has not developed these things yet it is STILL a human life. That is all that matters. Plus, the embryo will develop all of those traits later as an embryo is the developing stage of human life.

They are strong... because I have shown, and continue to show the double standards of pro-life arguments again and again. People CLAIM there's no difference, that an embryo is as worthy and valuable as a full grown human being, but everyone always demonstrates that they arent.

Those that do treat them equally are the wacky wackies... and even many pro-lifers back away from them slowly appalled at their ridiculous beliefs... like some suggesting murder charges for mothers who receive abortions etc.

Mythic
03-02-2009, 11:26 PM
You ignored the part where I talked about a single mother in poverty feeling like she had to choose between being able to care for her living child, and the potential one. Like you in the burning building, she might decide to choose the living child. That situation is very similar.... and a very common one for women who receive abortions.

Wilbur, I already explained that. The mother could choose adoption and would not hurt her child or kill anyone. The issue is death right now. If she chooses to put up her newborn baby for adoption her other child isn't going to die...that is the worst argument yet.


And we should just let drunk drivers who wrap their cars around telephone polls die in the streets. This personal responsibility kick is still a losing argument.

Once again...it is about saving the life. The drunk driver could have chosen not to drink and prevent the unwanted crash. But since he didn't we have to save that life.
The mother could have chosen to avoid sex and stop the unwanted pregnancy. But since she didn't we have to save the babies life.
Personal responsibility is not at all a losing argument. Pro-choicers say that a woman has the right to make a choice...that choice is not whether or not to kill the baby but whether or not to have sex.
Please. A drunk truck driver? He made a bad choice that could end his life if we dont save him. The woman will not die if she gives birth.


Actually, pro-life as a political movement (as in working to outlaw abortion) is totalitarian... moralistic bullies... myopically, militantly and belligerently interfering with profound philosophical choices in the lives of others... all when the movement can't even remotely justify their position in any way. I actually have nothing to say against anyone who finds abortion to be wrong and chooses never to have one... I have quite a lot more to say against others who attempt to assault the freedom of others through the rule of law. They have a word for that. It's "evil".
HAHAHAHAHAHA! I love your bombastic rhetoric. I am sorry for not wanting to give women the freedom to kill other humans. I apologize for being so "evil". I should legalize murder too so I wont harm people with my evil morals. What a ridiculous statement.

Here is how to justify the position. Killing human life of any stage or form is wrong. You can't argue with that.

wilbur
03-02-2009, 11:29 PM
As I stated...if you read the entire post...you can debate the murder issue all you want...but you cannot deny that abortion is killing, the deprivation of life.

Your equivocation comes in when you use the word 'killing'. There are many different forms of killing, in many different contexts. It is OK, or even the moral thing to do in some cases and not in others.

Yes abortion 'kills' a fetus. So what? The word kill doesn't necessarily imply evil or wrong.

Mythic
03-02-2009, 11:31 PM
They are strong... because I have shown, and continue to show the double standards of pro-life arguments again and again. People CLAIM there's no difference, that an embryo is as worthy and valuable as a full grown human being, but everyone always demonstrates that they arent.

I would love to see the double standard again. Just reinforce it in me please.
Of course there is a difference between an embryo and a grown human just as there is a difference between a newborn baby and a fully grown adult. There is no difference in how human any of them are. An embryo is just as human as an adult.

wilbur
03-02-2009, 11:34 PM
Wilbur, I already explained that. The mother could choose adoption and would not hurt her child or kill anyone. The issue is death right now. If she chooses to put up her newborn baby for adoption her other child isn't going to die...that is the worst argument yet.


Because carrying a baby to term is as simple as ordering a pizza? Suuuure, of course! Just let her carry a baby to term and deliver it! No biggie!



HAHAHAHAHAHA! I love your bombastic rhetoric. I am sorry for not wanting to give women the freedom to kill other humans. I apologize for being so "evil". I should legalize murder too so I wont harm people with my evil morals. What a ridiculous statement.


Funny... accusations of bombastic rhetoric coming from the pro-life side? Funny indeed;)

You arent preventing murder, you are forcing your unjustified beliefs on others... its that simple.

If you simply admit you feel abortion is wrong, but you have no grounds to prove your whims to any reasonable degree, and therefore have no business using the law to coerce people, then we have no beef. Otherwise we do. Heck, even if you want to go out and be an activist and convince the world you are right, we have no beef... until you resort to using the law.

Mythic
03-04-2009, 11:55 PM
Because carrying a baby to term is as simple as ordering a pizza? Suuuure, of course! Just let her carry a baby to term and deliver it! No biggie!No its not that is an idiotic statement. The issue here is death and if death can be prevented prevent it. I think that if a woman had a choice she would rather give labor than die. I never said that giving birth or having a pregnancy WASN'T a big thing. It is. And the baby growing inside the mother should not die just because the mother does not want it. You have so far been unable to respond to my point stating that someone dies during an abortion, but nobody dies during childbirth.


Funny... accusations of bombastic rhetoric coming from the pro-life side? Funny indeed

You arent preventing murder, you are forcing your unjustified beliefs on others... its that simple.
Again, I am sorry that you consider stopping death unjustified. Should we legalize murder too? Why not? Why should beliefs be forced upon the murderers? So far you haven't been able to actual make a strong argument against the main points I stated.

If you simply admit you feel abortion is wrong, but you have no grounds to prove your whims to any reasonable degree, and therefore have no business using the law to coerce people, then we have no beef. Otherwise we do. Heck, even if you want to go out and be an activist and convince the world you are right, we have no beef... until you resort to using the law.
Yet in that entire post you did not explain why YOUR point was so valid. You simply stated that I had a belief that I should not force upon others. I stated that I have a right to force that on others because the killing of a human is always wrong. And you dont call that grounds to prove my Pro-Life stance? Not only are they strong grounds, they are grounds that you cannot disprove no matter how off course of the main point you travel.

wilbur
03-06-2009, 11:41 AM
No its not that is an idiotic statement. The issue here is death and if death can be prevented prevent it. I think that if a woman had a choice she would rather give labor than die. I never said that giving birth or having a pregnancy WASN'T a big thing. It is. And the baby growing inside the mother should not die just because the mother does not want it. You have so far been unable to respond to my point stating that someone dies during an abortion, but nobody dies during childbirth.


I find that the way the of the woman's fears, concerns and plight are continually hand waved away as unimportant because of the personal whims of pro-lifers to be extremely contemptible.

The woman might not be making a choice between HERSELF and the life of her fetus... but between being able to care for an EXISTING child and the fetus... given that the majority of abortions are received by poor single mothers.

The supreme irony of all this, is that it is a right wing staple these days to claim that government assistance to women in these situations is tantamount to incentivizing single motherhood. So the situation is exacerbated on both ends.. by working to both remove any and all government assistance to these people, but also remove their choice to escape even deeper poverty. On these two points, the we really do see an unwitting conspiracy to cultivate the underclass.



Yet in that entire post you did not explain why YOUR point was so valid. You simply stated that I had a belief that I should not force upon others. I stated that I have a right to force that on others because the killing of a human is always wrong.


No it isnt.


And you dont call that grounds to prove my Pro-Life stance? Not only are they strong grounds, they are grounds that you cannot disprove no matter how off course of the main point you travel.

As has been since the beginning, you are still barking up the wrong tree. The onus on you is to prove why I or anyone else should consider a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, a blastocyst, beings of moral worth... at least of the moral worth that you say they have. Until you can, the conservative thing to do, the right thing to do is concede that you simply have no grounds to assert your beliefs upon others with the rule of law, and accept that people have the right to come to their own decisions. To do otherwise is contrary to everything conservatives claim to fight for.

Mythic
03-06-2009, 10:20 PM
but between being able to care for an EXISTING child and the fetus... given that the majority of abortions are received by poor single mothers.
The child isn't going to die because the mother is pregnant. Sorry. And what about single mothers who have two or three children? Will only one live because they have others to care for? Where you are trying to pull your arguments is ridiculous.


As has been since the beginning, you are still barking up the wrong tree. The onus on you is to prove why I or anyone else should consider a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, a blastocyst, beings of moral worth... at least of the moral worth that you say they have. Until you can, the conservative thing to do, the right thing to do is concede that you simply have no grounds to assert your beliefs upon others with the rule of law, and accept that people have the right to come to their own decisions. To do otherwise is contrary to everything conservatives claim to fight for.

You are quite a character wilbur. Whenever you have absolutely NOTHING to say, you simply disregard the points you find impossible to counter. You have no tree to bark up in the first place.

A human being ALWAYS HAS MORAL WORTH. That is the ground that Pro-Lifers stand on. We might as well legalize murder. Why should the government assert beliefs that murder is wrong on people? Why can't people just choose if they want to kill someone? That is the argument you pose. It is idiotic and ridiculous. You justify that by debasing the value of a human life. You state that women should be able to make a choice, but that choice should have been made before sex took place. A woman will not have to to keep the child she gives birth to if she puts the child up for an adoption. And if she doesn't want to go through pregnacny, then DONT HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX!

Conservatism takes into consideration the responsibilities associated with actions people take. You make your choice, and accept what responsibilities result from it.

Either you wish to remain ignorant to these facts or you simply do not have the capacity to understand them.

The bottom line is that human life should not just be wasted and thrown away because of the actions of other people.

wilbur
03-07-2009, 01:02 AM
The child isn't going to die because the mother is pregnant. Sorry. And what about single mothers who have two or three children? Will only one live because they have others to care for? Where you are trying to pull your arguments is ridiculous.

Still contemptible you refuse to even let yourself imagine the very real dilemmas you will force many women into due to the policies you want to enact. Yes, there are many situations where it simply may not be possible for a mother to adequately care for her existing child in order to bring another to term. But thats very noble of you to work so hard to bestow women everywhere with the opportunity to build some more character (just as long as its not at the taxpayers expense, I'm sure)!



You are quite a character wilbur. Whenever you have absolutely NOTHING to say, you simply disregard the points you find impossible to counter. You have no tree to bark up in the first place.


Well, I've simply exhausted ways in which to make you understand my position, which is why I resorted to creative little what if scenarios back there... and showed that even you think of embryos as less than human. I believe you cited the existence of personal relationships as the reason you consider even an entire army of embryos of less worth than a single human life.



The bottom line is that human life should not just be wasted and thrown away because of the actions of other people.

What you are arguing for is simply the idea that species membership confers rights. Sorry, that is a horrible criteria for moral worth.. its that kind of arbitrary thinking that allows people to judge worth based on skin color, or sex. What matters is a beings capacities, and its desires and needs, and the suffering that it can experience. Real live women posses all those things in spades. A fetus has none of those things. Through my examples I have shown that even you tend to think this way.. as do most of us (because it makes sense), even if they don't want to admit out loud (or to themselves).

Let's try this. Imagine all the animals, plants, and living things out there in the world. Rank them. Top of the list would be the beings that would cause you the most personal qualms if you were to harm them in some way.... bottom of the list would be the beings with which you would have no qualms about harming (garden weeds for example). What would the beings at the top of the list have in common? What about the bottom? What would be your general criteria when ranking an organism?

PoliCon
03-07-2009, 08:08 AM
Yes, there are many situations where it simply may not be possible for a mother to adequately care for her existing child in order to bring another to term.I believe that there is a saying that goes - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

And lets not forget - adoption is ALWAYS an option.

Mythic
03-07-2009, 03:31 PM
Still contemptible you refuse to even let yourself imagine the very real dilemmas you will force many women into due to the policies you want to enact.
Of course there will be dilemmas. I imagine they will be very difficult. But they do not justify the ending of a human life. Should people be encouraged to commit suicide because their life problems are so vast?


Well, I've simply exhausted ways in which to make you understand my position, which is why I resorted to creative little what if scenarios back there... and showed that even you think of embryos as less than human. I believe you cited the existence of personal relationships as the reason you consider even an entire army of embryos of less worth than a single human life.

I understand your opinion. You believe that a fetus is not human enough to deserve life. You believe that because it does not have common characteristics that other people share that it is not human. You believe the conflicts of the mother who chose to have sex in the first place outweigh the life of the fetus. You believe that it is unjust for a woman to be denied the right to kill their growing child. You do not think the woman should hold responsibility for her actions in having sex. If she wants to have sex unprotected fine, she can just kill what naturally occurs from it.

Once again you have proved not to understand my opinion. I do not think that embryos are of less worth or less human. All you have proved is that people are more likely to save the life of something more familiar over the life of something less familiar. But your little situation is not nearly the same as abortion. The situation would have these options:
1. You let the 100 embryos die the person in the building would live.
2. You let the 100 embryos live and the person in the building would live.
You would choose choice 1, and I would choose choice 2 because no life is killed in choice 2.

I find it funny that the only way you can even argue is to create hypothetical situations.


What you are arguing for is simply the idea that species membership confers rights. Sorry, that is a horrible criteria for moral worth.. its that kind of arbitrary thinking that allows people to judge worth based on skin color, or sex.
Do you realize what you just said? The whole argument of the abolitionists was that black people were human and because they were human they should have equal rights. That is pretty much the same argument Pro-Lifers have. The reason black people were disliked is because of the unfamiliarity they had to white people. A human fetus is like what a black slave would have been. The only reason they have less rights is because people see them as different and not equal to full humans. Slavery has ended and thankfully people of different skin color are seen as equal humans despite their differences.


What matters is a beings capacities, and its desires and needs, and the suffering that it can experience. Real live women posses all those things in spades. A fetus has none of those things.
So you believe that at one point in your life you were of less worth because you had not developed all of these traits yet? Before women gained equal rights in society they did not have an education. Because they did not have this knowledge were they of less worth? Are smart people of more worth than the uneducated? No. Why? Because they are all human. What about blind, deaf, and mute people? What about autistic children? What about people who cannot feel pain? Is a person who is under a gas mask at a doctors office of less worth because they cannot feel pain during an operation? Do people under despression who do not desire life anymore deserve to die? No. Why not? All of these people are humans.


Let's try this. Imagine all the animals, plants, and living things out there in the world. Rank them. Top of the list would be the beings that would cause you the most personal qualms if you were to harm them in some way.... bottom of the list would be the beings with which you would have no qualms about harming (garden weeds for example). What would the beings at the top of the list have in common? What about the bottom? What would be your general criteria when ranking an organism?
Humans would be at the top. Why? Because I am a human. I want to save my own species before others. The list would continue with all animals that I see closer to human. Plants would therefore be at the bottom. A plant will never develop all of the human traits. Neither will a dog, or a monkey, or a fish. A human embryo will thus it remains at the top with all the other humans.

wilbur
03-09-2009, 09:11 AM
Humans would be at the top. Why? Because I am a human. I want to save my own species before others. The list would continue with all animals that I see closer to human. Plants would therefore be at the bottom. A plant will never develop all of the human traits. Neither will a dog, or a monkey, or a fish. A human embryo will thus it remains at the top with all the other humans.

You really keep stopping short with your answers here, and by doing so, don't even realize you are subtly agreeing with me. OK, so you would rank beings based on their similarity to a human being. This is obvious... I would as well and really so would just about everyone else. But what characteristics of a being allow you to make a judgement about its closeness to humanity?

Is it the number of limbs a creature has? The way it looks? The range of skin tones it has? Perhaps even the genes? Maybe we should consult biologists... and use the phylogenetic tree showing the evolution of all life and how we are related? What are these 'human traits' you speak of?

It's hard to read that bolded part "human traits" as anything but code for "capacities".

Mythic
03-10-2009, 05:41 PM
It's hard to read that bolded part "human traits" as anything but code for "capacities".

Well by human traits I of course mean the ability to think, make choices, but also physical characteristics. But you are not going anywhere with this. I know where you think you are going, you are trying to get me to say that I judge the worth of creatures based on how they are similar to humans. I actually do judge like that. You would then say that if that is the case a fetus should not be judged as a human life because it cannot think etc.

Yet a fetus is a human. Ending an innocent human life is wrong, and therefore abortion is wrong. You still haven't disproved that all humans have the right to live. You have proven that people will often choose a grown human over the life of a fetus, but that does not mean that the fetus has less worth. All that shows is how humans will determine worth based on the similarities they have with other beings, whether human or not. Even I think that way. But despite that thinking process a fetus still is in no way of any less actual worth because it is simply a developing human. People rank the worth of things based on how they relate to them, but that does not mean that the life of one human is worth more than the other.

This is America, after all. Are we no longer providing equality for all? Why should the life of a fetus be worth any less than the life of an adult? Slave owners suffered much economic hardship when they had to free their slaves, just as women will suffer harships during a pregnacny. But does that make slavery right? No. And it does not make abortion right either.

FlaGator
03-10-2009, 07:19 PM
All of these arguments and points and counter points to justify what is basically a self-serving decision that in the end takes way from someone all they have and all they ever would have had. Wilbur you argue for denying someone existence and a future because that life would be inconvenient to you...

MrsSmith
03-10-2009, 07:45 PM
The woman might not be making a choice between HERSELF and the life of her fetus... but between being able to care for an EXISTING child and the fetus... given that the majority of abortions are received by poor single mothers.

The supreme irony of all this, is that it is a right wing staple these days to claim that government assistance to women in these situations is tantamount to incentivizing single motherhood. So the situation is exacerbated on both ends.. by working to both remove any and all government assistance to these people, but also remove their choice to escape even deeper poverty. On these two points, the we really do see an unwitting conspiracy to cultivate the underclass

To blow a hole in wiilbur's argument...I was a single mom with inadequate resources when I became pregnant through bad choices. I did not have the option of government assistance because 2 of my older children had inherited their father's estate...I could not use one penny of it without going to jail, but that didn't matter, assistance would not be given.

wilbur's "correct answer" is that I should have murdered my child.

That child is now 12...just turned Saturday. None of my older children were murdered, starved, denied housing, denied clothing, or in any other way harmed by the birth of the youngest. In REAL LIFE, a single mother without government help really can survive without murdering any child, of any age.

Say, wilbur, since murdering a child is evidently just fine for financial reasons, why couldn't the mother murder the older child in order to raise the one she is carrying? If she skips a funeral, that would be a lot cheaper, no doctor bill or anything. Is that a "choice?"

wilbur
03-11-2009, 11:21 AM
To blow a hole in wiilbur's argument...I was a single mom with inadequate resources when I became pregnant through bad choices. I did not have the option of government assistance because 2 of my older children had inherited their father's estate...I could not use one penny of it without going to jail, but that didn't matter, assistance would not be given.

wilbur's "correct answer" is that I should have murdered my child.


The "correct answer" is whatever the mother decides. Because I argue strongly for choice you assume I think abortion is some act that should be celebrated and encouraged, but that is not true.



That child is now 12...just turned Saturday. None of my older children were murdered, starved, denied housing, denied clothing, or in any other way harmed by the birth of the youngest. In REAL LIFE, a single mother without government help really can survive without murdering any child, of any age.


Glad it worked out for you. See Ann Coulter's latest polemics about single mothers for testimonials that don't turn out so rosy.



Say, wilbur, since murdering a child is evidently just fine for financial reasons, why couldn't the mother murder the older child in order to raise the one she is carrying? If she skips a funeral, that would be a lot cheaper, no doctor bill or anything. Is that a "choice?"

Have you listened to anything I have said... at all? It's not OK to murder a child. Its perfectly alright to kill a fetus if the woman feels its the right thing to do. The two are not equivalent.

linda22003
03-11-2009, 11:25 AM
It's not OK to murder a child. Its perfectly alright to kill a fetus if the woman feels its the right thing to do. The two are not equivalent.

It's equivalent for some people, and that's okay - that's their point of view. What's nuts, though, is the ranting going on about Embryonic Stem Cells over on FR- people are irate that there will now be a "market" for "women's fetuses". They get so enraged about ESCR and don't even realize that we're not talking about something that has EVER been inside a woman, or EVER will be, and has no chance at life in any case. I guess the less you know about something, the more passionate you get about it. :rolleyes:

wilbur
03-11-2009, 11:27 AM
All of these arguments and points and counter points to justify what is basically a self-serving decision that in the end takes way from someone all they have and all they ever would have had. Wilbur you argue for denying someone existence and a future because that life would be inconvenient to you...

Ok fine... lets grant you your attempts to reduce most abortion situations to matters of a trifle inconvenience.... so what? The issue in front of you is to prove that a grave moral wrong is committed in an abortion.... and you don't get there by trying to minimize the plight of women, or decry the circumstances and actions that led them to that point. You also don't get there by simply saying its wrong over and over again.

wilbur
03-11-2009, 11:32 AM
It's equivalent for some people, and that's okay - that's their point of view.

Well, I have conceded to people that its OK for them to have that belief... but they are not content to let others have differing beliefs.



What's nuts, though, is the ranting going on about Embryonic Stem Cells over on FR- people are irate that there will now be a "market" for "women's fetuses". They get so enraged about ESCR and don't even realize that we're not talking about something that has EVER been inside a woman, or EVER will be, and has no chance at life in any case. I guess the less you know about something, the more passionate you get about it. :rolleyes:

There's so many fallacies and so much stupidity from the anti-stem cell crowd that I simply don't know where to begin.

wilbur
03-11-2009, 12:05 PM
Well by human traits I of course mean the ability to think, make choices, but also physical characteristics.

But really... what physical characteristics would make you treat a being with more moral consideration, since you say thats also a factor? Are we talking biochemically speaking, or more visible morphology (similar body styles)... what?


But you are not going anywhere with this. I know where you think you are going, you are trying to get me to say that I judge the worth of creatures based on how they are similar to humans. I actually do judge like that. You would then say that if that is the case a fetus should not be judged as a human life because it cannot think etc.


I'm trying to get you to articulate what you find valuable about life. You don't even seem to have a clear picture of that yourself. Sometimes its DNA, sometimes its capacity, sometimes is physical characteristics (whatever those may be), sometimes its species membership, sometimes its potential. That's where I'm going with this. What you have a hot mess of incoherent mutually exclusive beliefs and ideas masquerading as a solid philosophy.

You'd force a mother to carry a baby to term against her will because you say the potential is the same worth as her life. Yet you'd sacrifice the potential of 100's embryos (and their potential relationships, life etc) for a single human life because you value existing relationships over their potential.

Really, you've made it very clear that what it means to be human and what is valuable about life seems to only depend on which spots in the sand you have arbitrarily chosen to dig in your heels for any particular situation.



Yet a fetus is a human. Ending an innocent human life is wrong, and therefore abortion is wrong. You still haven't disproved that all humans have the right to live. You have proven that people will often choose a grown human over the life of a fetus, but that does not mean that the fetus has less worth. All that shows is how humans will determine worth based on the similarities they have with other beings, whether human or not. Even I think that way. But despite that thinking process a fetus still is in no way of any less actual worth because it is simply a developing human. People rank the worth of things based on how they relate to them, but that does not mean that the life of one human is worth more than the other.

This is America, after all. Are we no longer providing equality for all? Why should the life of a fetus be worth any less than the life of an adult?

As we have seen, you sometimes pick and choose what to consider equal or valuable based on... well... I'm not sure what. You don't even seem to know... or even realize that you did until I worked to draw it out of you.



Slave owners suffered much economic hardship when they had to free their slaves, just as women will suffer harships during a pregnacny. But does that make slavery right? No. And it does not make abortion right either.

Still barking up the wrong tree. Its still absurd to compare an embryo or a fetus to a grown person of any kind. What is valid is to say that your position on species is just as arbitrary and unjustifiable as a bigot's position towards another race, or the opposite sex... or homosexuals etc.

Mythic
03-11-2009, 04:20 PM
I'm trying to get you to articulate what you find valuable about life. You don't even seem to have a clear picture of that yourself. Sometimes its DNA, sometimes its capacity, sometimes is physical characteristics (whatever those may be), sometimes its species membership, sometimes its potential. That's where I'm going with this. What you have a hot mess of incoherent mutually exclusive beliefs and ideas masquerading as a solid philosophy.
Life? Or human life? Human life is most valuable just because it is a human life. Life in general is valuable beacuse of all the characteristics I mentioned. Because of similarities to humans. Mammals look more like humans and I would less likely kill a mammal than say a bird. Human life is worth the most, and all other life follows behind in order of how similar it is to human life. Thats all that really needs to be said about how I judge life. I think its pretty clear. I apologize if you could not figure out what I was saying before.


You'd force a mother to carry a baby to term against her will because you say the potential is the same worth as her life. Yet you'd sacrifice the potential of 100's embryos (and their potential relationships, life etc) for a single human life because you value existing relationships over their potential.

You are bringing in old arguments and I don't think you really understood them. The potential of the fetus is not worth the mother's life, the fact that both the fetus and the mother are humans is what makes them both equally worthy of life.
The reason I would have chosen that single human life over the 100 equally worthy embryos is because of how most people value one human life to the next. In a situation like that I have to choose which human lives to save, even though each is just as worthy. Like I stated above I judge life like most people by the similarities they see to themselves. Which is why I would choose the grown human adult. That may not be the right choice, but often times it is hard to make the right choice. If I recall you chose to save the person you love over 100 other strangers. Less lives are saved, but you relate much better to the person you saved and whom you know than the other 100 people. Does that make the choice the best one? No. But it is very difficult to save the unknown, no matter how many exist, when somone far more similar could also be saved.

But once again, abortion does not involve choosing between a woman and an embryo. Everyone will live if abortion is not performed.


As we have seen, you sometimes pick and choose what to consider equal or valuable based on... well... I'm not sure what. You don't even seem to know... or even realize that you did until I worked to draw it out of you.
I have always known, don't worry. I'm not the one having a hard time understanding my points...

Still barking up the wrong tree. Its still absurd to compare an embryo or a fetus to a grown person of any kind.
Why? Because when I do you cannot come up with an argument?

FlaGator
03-11-2009, 04:58 PM
Ok fine... lets grant you your attempts to reduce most abortion situations to matters of a trifle inconvenience.... so what? The issue in front of you is to prove that a grave moral wrong is committed in an abortion.... and you don't get there by trying to minimize the plight of women, or decry the circumstances and actions that led them to that point. You also don't get there by simply saying its wrong over and over again.

The problem is you reject all moral arguments no matter how valid. When it is explained to you that abortion is murder and murder is morally wrong, you argue unsuccessfully that it is not murder. When people here, myself included, give up after realizing that you will never understand this from a moral view point we use other arguments.

Now you are attempting to dictate to those with pro-life views what points we can and can't use. I have seen you do this time and time again because you feel you can't win those arguments so you attempt steer the debate in to an area in which you feel more more confortable and can avoid having to address points you are unable to address.

No one is minimizing the plight of the woman, but the circumstances that bring about the need for abortion and the personal responsibility that is lacking in some people are very relevent to the conversation and are not going to go away no matter how much you bemoan them and attempt to limit or avoid them.

As long as you want to debate this, then you are just going to have to deal with all the angles and non just the ones you feel you are able to control.

wilbur
03-11-2009, 05:07 PM
Life? Or human life? Human life is most valuable just because it is a human life. Life in general is valuable beacuse of all the characteristics I mentioned. Because of similarities to humans.


All life, including human life. Judging a being on its similarity to something else, implies there are a set of criteria you will use to evaluate its similarity. Its meaningless to sit here and say I value humans and organisms that are like humans if you cannot detail what it is about them that makes them alike.



Mammals look more like humans and I would less likely kill a mammal than say a bird.

What about some parrots and other intelligent birds? Sometimes they are ranked as some of the smartest animals in the world... ahead of many mammals. I'm really surprised you are going this route... its pretty silly.



Human life is worth the most, and all other life follows behind in order of how similar it is to human life. Thats all that really needs to be said about how I judge life. I think its pretty clear. I apologize if you could not figure out what I was saying before.


I understood what you are saying, but you are being pretty vague.

I think you realize that if you start rattling off characteristics that you would use to compare animals to humans, you would soon find out its not the label 'human' that is important to you... but all the things I have been arguing for. Capacities, experience, ability to suffer, needs/wants etc. You will HAVE to use all those things to determine how human-like an animal is... its unavoidable.



You are bringing in old arguments and I don't think you really understood them. The potential of the fetus is not worth the mother's life, the fact that both the fetus and the mother are humans is what makes them both equally worthy of life.


You are both trying to say anything with the label human is automatically of equal moral consideration, despite its condition or state, and it needs no justification. But we see this isnt true when we talk about animals above... you obviously claim there are certain traits that make an animal human-like that make it worth more than another animal. Describe those traits in detail, and we will finally have a picture of what you value about human life.... and so far we have 'the way it looks'. Personally, I would rather put the valuation of my life and the life of my loved ones... and all other life on more solid footing than physical appearance and a 'just because'.



The reason I would have chosen that single human life over the 100 equally worthy embryos is because of how most people value one human life to the next. In a situation like that I have to choose which human lives to save, even though each is just as worthy. Like I stated above I judge life like most people by the similarities they see to themselves. Which is why I would choose the grown human adult. That may not be the right choice, but often times it is hard to make the right choice.

Well ok... maybe not the right choice, but you are free to make it, arent you? Just keep running with that thought and you'll find that you have to agree with the legality of abortion.



If I recall you chose to save the person you love over 100 other strangers. Less lives are saved, but you relate much better to the person you saved and whom you know than the other 100 people. Does that make the choice the best one? No. But it is very difficult to save the unknown, no matter how many exist, when somone far more similar could also be saved.


Again, may not be the right or most ethical choice... but would you take away my right to make it? Or suggest I had to make the choice you want me to or else? Thats the key difference here... you want to remove that freedom.



But once again, abortion does not involve choosing between a woman and an embryo. Everyone will live if abortion is not performed.


You have to suppress the needs, desires, remove the freedom of a living human person to get your way.... for a being we've already establsihed that you don't treat as human despite what you say.



Why? Because when I do you cannot come up with an argument?

Its absurd for the same reason its absurd to compare a single eukaryotic cell, or a small group of them, to a human being.

wilbur
03-11-2009, 05:22 PM
As long as you want to debate this, then you are just going to have to deal with all the angles and non just the ones you feel you are able to control.

I have demonstrated in the last big discussion that personal responsibility is irrelevant to the abortion discussion. You will not consistently apply these standards of personal responsibility when it comes to other consequences of irresponsible sex....

Your argument from 'convenience' really amounts to a ludicrous claim:

Abortion is a matter of convenience, therefore abortion is wrong.

Its not the sex, or irresponsibility, or the convenience on which you hinge the morality of abortion and it never has been. Surely you have to recognize this.

So again, bringing up convenience is a red herring. If you think abortion is wrong for its own reasons, it matters not how a person got into the situation, or why they want the abortion.

Mythic
03-11-2009, 05:34 PM
Its meaningless to sit here and say I value humans and organisms that are like humans if you cannot detail what it is about them that makes them alike.

I already stated in two posts what I thought. I think we all know that humans are different because of their sophistication. There is no debate on what makes humans different from animals, but any similarity people see between humans and animals can cause people to rate different animals worthier than others. This little sub-argument is really pointless, I am tired of restating everything I say.


What about some parrots and other intelligent birds? Sometimes they are ranked as some of the smartest animals in the world... ahead of many mammals. I'm really surprised you are going this route... its pretty silly.
I would probably rank more intelligent animals above less intelligent ones, thus a parrot would be more than say a bear. Since humans are the most intelligent forms of life on earth, animals that are more intelligent are more similar to us. What route are you talking about? Its quite funny because you don't even state what route you think I am going on. This argument is pointless though. Abortion has nothing to do with any other forms of life other than human.


I think you realize that if you start rattling off characteristics that you would use to compare animals to humans, you would soon find out its not the label 'human' that is important to you... but all the things I have been arguing for. Capacities, experience, ability to suffer, needs/wants etc. You will HAVE to use all those things to determine how human-like an animal is... its unavoidable.
I would rate life based on the ability to suffer, needs, wants, etc. along with everything I have said. Humans all have those characteristics. They of course do not all develop them all at once, but humans still have them more than other creatures do. Creatures that are more similar to humans who seem to suffer/need things like humans I would rate higher. What is funny is that you thinking you are getting me to admit information which you plan to turn against me in some sort of triumph, but I already know what your next argument would be and its quite simple to counter. But once again, rating other animals is not part of abortion...


You are both trying to say anything with the label human is automatically of equal moral consideration, despite its condition or state
Not anything with the label human. Human skin cells are not the same worth as actual humans. Human life is all equal. Unless you believe that not all human life is equal? In order to support abortion you have to conclude that not all human life is equal.


Well ok... maybe not the right choice, but you are free to make it, arent you? Just keep running with that thought and you'll find that you have to agree with the legality of abortion.
WRONG. Let me explain this again. That situation would result in the death of at least 1 human life no matter what choice was made. During a situation where a mother chooses abortion or birth, only one option kills a human life and therefore that option should be made illegal. The woman is not in a burning building that will kill her if she has a pregnancy. I am tired of hypothetical situations that do not actually relate to abortion. Let me put before you one that actually does.

This situation is what abortion would be like if along that same burning building idea:
You are in a burning building. There is a baby in another room that cannot get out. You can either save the baby, injuring yourself but still living, and escape the building, or you can just leave the building without a scratch and leave the baby to die. That is abortion. You are the woman, and the baby is the fetus. The person in the building will not die if the baby is saved, but may have injuries that will eventually heal over time. Only one option is right, and that is to save the baby.
This situation has two choices:
1. Save the baby and yourself. Nobody dies, but you are injured.
2. Escape and leave the baby. The baby dies, but you are no injured.
Which of these choices would you pick? Say the baby were just a fetus, making the situation even more like abortion. Would you still save it?


Thats the key difference here... you want to remove that freedom.
And what freedom is that? Freedom to kill? Why not legalize murder? It may not be the best choice to kill someone, but if my life will be somewhat better why not? Please. What a ridiculous argument. You are taking away the right of the baby to live, along with every freedom it has.


Its absurd for the same reason its absurd to compare a single eukaryotic cell, or a small group of them, to a human being.
Stop repeating the same argument that has already been greatly disproved! A single cell that is not a fetus/embryo will never become a human and is not a human life! A human skin cell is part of a human, but it is not a human life. A fetus IS. Many people have provided numerous reasons and it is absolutely pointless for you to continue with that point. To compare a fetus to a grown person is not absurd at all...a fetus is a human life, so is a grown person. You are the one trying to compare other mammals and parrots to humans to justify abortion, which makes no sense at all.

FlaGator
03-11-2009, 08:41 PM
I have demonstrated in the last big discussion that personal responsibility is irrelevant to the abortion discussion. You will not consistently apply these standards of personal responsibility when it comes to other consequences of irresponsible sex....

You demonstrated nothing. What gives you the impression that you demonstrated that personal responsibility is irrelevant? I can apply them in any fashion I find morally acceptable to me but I am curious. How did I fail to apply them consistently?

Also, since you by your own admission fail to apply a consistant logical view point on other things, say the resurrection of Christ, why are you now holding others to a standard that you yourself disregard?



Your argument from 'convenience' really amounts to a ludicrous claim:

Abortion is a matter of convenience, therefore abortion is wrong.

Its not the sex, or irresponsibility, or the convenience on which you hinge the morality of abortion and it never has been. Surely you have to recognize this.

So again, bringing up convenience is a red herring. If you think abortion is wrong for its own reasons, it matters not how a person got into the situation, or why they want the abortion.

I never stated that abortion was wrong based only on convience. Because I used the those points of view during the same point does not mean that one is dependant upon the other. You chose to view it this way because it was easier for you to argue.

What I stated was, that when two people engage in any act that has consequences and they know this before they commit the act, they consent to accept the consequences of that act. Name something in life other than abortion that does not work this way?

Now when the act results in one of the possible outcomes and they don't like that outcome and chose to circumvent it for convenience sake then they are not accepting responsibility for their actions.

Show me where I am stating anything illogical or find a situation that does not adhere to the above concept other than the correction of a medical problem to save a life.

wilbur
03-12-2009, 11:38 AM
You demonstrated nothing. What gives you the impression that you demonstrated that personal responsibility is irrelevant? I can apply them in any fashion I find morally acceptable to me but I am curious. How did I fail to apply them consistently?


Because when you try to justify your position, you will simply fall back to 'the fetus is a baby'.

Wether or not a fetus is a baby is not contingent upon the circumstances which lead to its creation. Hence, the circumstances that lead to its creation are not relevant when making a judgement on the rights of a fetus. It seems you guys have listened to your own rhetoric for so long, you don't even give pause for thought to what it actually means anymore.



Also, since you by your own admission fail to apply a consistant logical view point on other things, say the resurrection of Christ, why are you now holding others to a standard that you yourself disregard?


Practice up on some reading comprehension my friend ;) How exactly is being skeptical of miracle stories, which have no more historical support than legends of vampires, dragons, ghosts or UFO's, inconsistent with my worldview? Judging the 'evidence' for your resurrection myth with the same skeptical eye as anything else is not inconsistent. The exact opposite, actually. You want to claim I'm inconsistent because I don't grant special status to your weak evidence... but those are your inconsistencies.. not mine.



I never stated that abortion was wrong based only on convience. Because I used the those points of view during the same point does not mean that one is dependant upon the other. You chose to view it this way because it was easier for you to argue.


Its a schtick you fall back to quite readily. Its a red herring, always has been, and will be. It makes you feel like your making good points, but its an evasion. But most of all, its a way for pro-lifers to continue their pattern of dehumanization of women... so they don't have to feel guilty about many of the horrible situations they would thrust women into as a result of their policies.



What I stated was, that when two people engage in any act that has consequences and they know this before they commit the act, they consent to accept the consequences of that act. Name something in life other than abortion that does not work this way?

Now when the act results in one of the possible outcomes and they don't like that outcome and chose to circumvent it for convenience sake then they are not accepting responsibility for their actions.


This is not an argument. There are innumerable situations where we allow leniency to escape the full effects of the consequences of an irresponsible act, in every single walk of life... in our judicial system, in our social interactions... probably even in the military. We allow leniency for first time criminal offenders. People can get to treat their STDs. How is BC even allowable in this sense, since it is simply designed from the ground up to avoid the consequences of sex.

If the fetus is not a baby, there is NO need to force woman to carry it to term, period. Consequence/convenience are irrelevant. If the fetus IS a baby, there is NO need to justify it's life by claiming it's a consequence.. its life is justified enough on its own merits. Again, consequence/convenience are irrelevant. Your points are moot.

palerider
03-13-2009, 10:23 AM
Well I really wasnt trying to have the abortion conversation again.... I'm right, you're wrong, and the world agrees with me on this one... thats about all there is to say about it anymore;)

Appeal to popularity? That is one of the weakest of logical fallacies that pro choicers use in an attempt to justify their indefensible position.

Have any others you would like to try?

palerider
03-13-2009, 10:28 AM
A building is in flames.... you, a stranger who needs your help to escape, and a case of hundreds of frozen embryos are inside. You only have time to save the person OR the embryos, but not both. Who do you save? I will have to laugh (or possibly cry) at any person here whose 'natural inclination' would be to save the embryos and let the person burn to death. But if you hold to the courage of your convictions, that's exactly what you should do.

False dilemma? You are just full of logical fallacies aren't you? It is irrelavent which you choose to save. In any event human beings are left behind to burn. Presenting such a dilemma is at best, a poor party trick as it proves nothing. Suppose the same building is on fire and there is a female native american, a male black, a white female, and an arabic male. Which one do you save? And what, exactly does your choice prove about those you leave behind to burn or your feelings about them?

palerider
03-13-2009, 10:36 AM
If the fetus is not a baby, there is NO need to force woman to carry it to term, period.

Fetus, baby, zygote newborn, blastocyst, toddler, embryo, adult, old geezer, etc. All are no more than nouns used to describe the same individual at various stages of his or her life. Playing word games is no more effective than offering up logical fallacies. Neither represents a rational argument in support of your postion.

Goldwater
03-13-2009, 11:08 AM
Politics and science itself must've been dumbed down a lot for a kid to come to the table as an equal...

palerider
03-13-2009, 11:12 AM
Politics and science itself must've been dumbed down a lot for a kid to come to the table as an equal...

No offense, but I am afraid that your point escapes me.

wilbur
03-13-2009, 11:58 AM
False dilemma? You are just full of logical fallacies aren't you? It is irrelavent which you choose to save. In any event human beings are left behind to burn. Presenting such a dilemma is at best, a poor party trick as it proves nothing. Suppose the same building is on fire and there is a female native american, a male black, a white female, and an arabic male. Which one do you save? And what, exactly does your choice prove about those you leave behind to burn or your feelings about them?

Do you know what a false dilemma is? Because that wasn't one.

Its a hypothetical... one that, if one chooses to take part, get help us get to the heart of how we really feel or what we really believe instead of what we say... which often times do not align. As is the case almost every time, pro-lifers outwardly tell the world the fetus is just like a human being, but inwardly there is a different story.

In your situation outlined above, I don't think I would have any conscious bias.

The point with the embryo situation is that you will have a hard time finding anyone who would even give a second thought to saving the case full of embryo's over a human being... and more importantly, why?

wilbur
03-13-2009, 12:02 PM
Appeal to popularity? That is one of the weakest of logical fallacies that pro choicers use in an attempt to justify their indefensible position.


Well, we appreciate you dropping by and bringing your little 'logical fallacies for dummies' book with you... but you need to practice picking them out a little more.
That was more of a gloat...

I justify pro-choice by using sound reasoning and common sense... I never tried to justify pro-choice by appealing to popularity.. The pro-life/pro-choice battle has ostensibly been won, and thats all I really said.

wilbur
03-13-2009, 12:07 PM
Fetus, baby, zygote newborn, blastocyst, toddler, embryo, adult, old geezer, etc. All are no more than nouns used to describe the same individual at various stages of his or her life. Playing word games is no more effective than offering up logical fallacies. Neither represents a rational argument in support of your postion.

Based on the state of the individual, we have different parameters for how they are treated.

Brain dead? Same individual, much different considerations. Corpse? Same individual, much different considerations.

Zygote? Well, the mother gets to choose how she wants to consider it.

palerider
03-13-2009, 01:21 PM
Do you know what a false dilemma is? Because that wasn't one.

Its a hypothetical... one that, if one chooses to take part, get help us get to the heart of how we really feel or what we really believe instead of what we say... which often times do not align. As is the case almost every time, pro-lifers outwardly tell the world the fetus is just like a human being, but inwardly there is a different story.

Of course I know what a false dilemma is. Now you have exposed yourself as NOT knowing what false dilemma is.

A false dilemma such as the one you proposed suggests that there are only two options exist. If one does not rescue the embryos then they must not be human beings. This is not the case. If one rescues the post natal, it only proves that one rescued the post natal but says nothing to the nature of the ones left behind. At best, a false dilemma could prove hypocricy, but hypocricy also does not speak to the reality that the embryos were human beings as well.


In your situation outlined above, I don't think I would have any conscious bias.

The point was that whichever you rescued, some irrelavent and baseless slur could be lodged against you. The one you rescued would not prove anything about those you left behind or your reason for leaving them behind just as choosing to rescue the child rather than the embryos proves nothing about the embryos nor does it prove anything about the reason the child was chosen. Both are false dilemmas that prove nothing with regard to the subject of the dilemma.


The point with the embryo situation is that you will have a hard time finding anyone who would even give a second thought to saving the case full of embryo's over a human being... and more importantly, why?

Completely irrelavent. You would have a hard time finding a KKK member who would rescue any of the minority children over the white child but who he rescues proves nothing about the children left behind. The KKK member may not consider the minority children to be human beings but that is only a product of his own intellectual limitations just as one who lacks the knowledge to grasp the fact that we are as human as we will ever get at the time we are concieved. We will grow and mature, but never become more human. Human is simply what we are and not a product of the degree to which we manifest our potential.

Do you believe that you could ever do anything to become more or less of a human being? You can certainly do all manner of things to become a better or worse human being, but more or less? No, I am afraid that you can't. Human is simply what you are, what you have always been and will always be.

palerider
03-13-2009, 01:25 PM
Well, we appreciate you dropping by and bringing your little 'logical fallacies for dummies' book with you... but you need to practice picking them out a little more.
That was more of a gloat...

It was an observation. You made the claim that you must be right because a large number of people agree with you while making no attempt to argue why a large number agree with you. There was time when the majority may have agreed with you that the earth was flat but the fact that many thought the same thing is irrelavent to the fact of the actual shape of the earth.


I justify pro-choice by using sound reasoning and common sense... I never tried to justify pro-choice by appealing to popularity.. The pro-life/pro-choice battle has ostensibly been won, and thats all I really said.


So far, I have only seen you attempt to justify it with logical fallacies. I would be interested in seeing a rational argument in support of allowing one human being to kill another without judicial review and without legal consequence for any or no reason.

Proceed.

palerider
03-13-2009, 01:31 PM
Based on the state of the individual, we have different parameters for how they are treated.

Tidy dodge. All tyrants and all those who would deny a class of human beings their most basic right have had "parameters" for how they treated their victims. Under close examination, however, all those parameters have failed the rationality test and invariably turn out to be a bias of one sort or another. In this case, your suggestion of "parameters" strongly suggests ageism.


Brain dead? Same individual, much different considerations. Corpse? Same individual, much different considerations.


You have a constitutional right to live. You have no constitutional right to have extroidinary medical measures taken on your behalf indefinately to preserve you when you are so sick or injured that no reasonable hope of your recovery exists. The inherent weakness of your argument is brought into high relief when you attempt to compare a healthy individual with one who is dying or dead.


Zygote? Well, the mother gets to choose how she wants to consider it.

Today. But then any parrot on a stick can stand up and say "it's legal, it's legal". Defending the decision that made it legal is another matter altogether and as soon as you attempt to try, any pretense of rationality on your part will exit via the nearest window.

wilbur
03-13-2009, 01:59 PM
Of course I know what a false dilemma is. Now you have exposed yourself as NOT knowing what false dilemma is.

A false dilemma such as the one you proposed suggests that there are only two options exist. If one does not rescue the embryos then they must not be human beings. This is not the case. If one rescues the post natal, it only proves that one rescued the post natal but says nothing to the nature of the ones left behind. At best, a false dilemma could prove hypocricy, but hypocricy also does not speak to the reality that the embryos were human beings as well.


Well, OK... if you play along in my scenario, you could choose not to rescue anyone, or die trying to rescue both.... or you could do some jumping jacks till you die of smoke inhalation... the latter is just silly, and the former two wouldn't be very likely. So yea, there are limitless amounts of choices one COULD make in that situation, but all this really violates the spirit of the purpose of all this.



The point was that whichever you rescued, some irrelavent and baseless slur could be lodged against you. The one you rescued would not prove anything about those you left behind or your reason for leaving them behind just as choosing to rescue the child rather than the embryos proves nothing about the embryos nor does it prove anything about the reason the child was chosen. Both are false dilemmas that prove nothing with regard to the subject of the dilemma.


Perhaps, if I didn't bother to try and find out WHY the choice was made, you might have a point. But I did not set up a rigged question, force someone to make a choice, and then try and call them names. I set up a scenario, asked what choice they would make, and most importantly, asked WHY that choice was made. The "why" was the whole point of the scenario.

As you see, Mythic mentioned the existence of personal relationships and loved ones, as to why he would value a human being over hundreds of smaller human beings.



Completely irrelavent. You would have a hard time finding a KKK member who would rescue any of the minority children over the white child but who he rescues proves nothing about the children left behind. The KKK member may not consider the minority children to be human beings but that is only a product of his own intellectual limitations just as one who lacks the knowledge to grasp the fact that we are as human as we will ever get at the time we are concieved. We will grow and mature, but never become more human. Human is simply what we are and not a product of the degree to which we manifest our potential.


Well, I don't think I'm arguing against any KKK member's here... I'm arguing against pro-lifers... and as such am trying to help them surpass their intellectual limitations ;)



Do you believe that you could ever do anything to become more or less of a human being? You can certainly do all manner of things to become a better or worse human being, but more or less? No, I am afraid that you can't. Human is simply what you are, what you have always been and will always be.

Human is what we call ourselves... but what we value about ourselves is something completely different than that arbitrary string of letters.

I wasn't trying to prove that embryo's are or are not human. I admit openly... yes in a technical sense, embryo's are human, fetuses are human and have no qualms about it. Pro-lifers claim they value 'humanity'. But by itself, it is an empty concept. Pro-lifers have come to think they value this label human, therefore anything you attach the label too is automatically valuable.

Two things generally happen, in my experience, when you try to get a pro-lifer to elaborate on WHAT or WHY they value humanity, or why we should bother to treat each other ethically at all. Either some religious reasons, or they simply say 'just because'. In either case, there is more going on, despite the insistence that its sensible to simply say 'just because' and accept their arbitrary whims as law.

The point of the scenarios is to show one just how arbitrary their position is, or (hopefully) to get them to spell out plainly what it is about life, and human life in particular, that guides their beliefs about how we should behave towards it. In the latter case, one will almost always discover that everything they hold to be valuable about life is not present in an embryo or a fetus.

palerider
03-13-2009, 02:42 PM
Well, OK... if you play along in my scenario, you could choose not to rescue anyone, or die trying to rescue both.... or you could do some jumping jacks till you die of smoke inhalation... the latter is just silly, and the former two wouldn't be very likely. So yea, there are limitless amounts of choices one COULD make in that situation, but all this really violates the spirit of the purpose of all this.

If I play along in your senario, I am supporting your false dilemma. I don't do that. If you can't make rational arguments, then I am left with nothing but to point out the flaws in your line of thinking and the resulting irrationality of your arguments.


Perhaps, if I didn't bother to try and find out WHY the choice was made, you might have a point. But I did not set up a rigged question, force someone to make a choice, and then try and call them names. I set up a scenario, asked what choice they would make, and most importantly, asked WHY that choice was made. The "why" was the whole point of the scenario.

And like with all logical fallacies, the explanation proves the fallacy. The "why" is absolutely and completely irrelavant. The why speaks to knee jerk emotional reactions rather than any rational thought. An emotional reaction is the worst possible way to make any rational determination. The "why" opens the door to a host of other fallacious arguments beginning with the inevetable straw man and proceeding from there.

You claimed that your position is based on sound reasoning and common sense. When do we get to that part? Logical fallacy constitutes neither.


As you see, Mythic mentioned the existence of personal relationships and loved ones, as to why he would value a human being over hundreds of smaller human beings.

Mythic answered based on an emotional reaction to a given situation. He bought into your false dilemma. His answer proves nothing about the nature of the embryos left behind.


Well, I don't think I'm arguing against any KKK member's here... I'm arguing against pro-lifers... and as such am trying to help them surpass their intellectual limitations ;)

How do you propose to do that with a string of logical fallacies? When do we get to your "sound reasoning and common sense"? Thus far, you have only exhibited your own limitations and done nothing to assist anyone in surpassing their own unless you are, perhaps, only presenting arguments that may be effortlessly torn into small easily digestible pieces for you in an effort to show other pro choicers the sorts of arguments that simply won't fly. Is that your plan?


Human is what we call ourselves... but what we value about ourselves is something completely different than that arbitrary string of letters.

Prove that.


I wasn't trying to prove that embryo's are or are not human. I admit openly... yes in a technical sense, embryo's are human, fetuses are human and have no qualms about it. Pro-lifers claim they value 'humanity'. But by itself, it is an empty concept. Pro-lifers have come to think they value this label human, therefore anything you attach the label too is automatically valuable.

In a literal sense they are as human as they will ever be. Don't confuse me with a pro lifer. I am not. I am anti abortion on demand so pro life arguments are meaningless and not applicable to me. I find pro life arguments as spurious as pro choice arguments. My arguments are based firmly in science and the law. I never suggest that life is sacred, or attempt to make moral questions. To do so would render my postion as indefensible as your own.


Two things generally happen, in my experience, when you try to get a pro-lifer to elaborate on WHAT or WHY they value humanity, or why we should bother to treat each other ethically at all. Either some religious reasons, or they simply say 'just because'. In either case, there is more going on, despite the insistence that its sensible to simply say 'just because' and accept their arbitrary whims as law.

You aren't talking to a pro lifer. You are talking to an anti abortion on demand advocate. I have no interest in pro life arguments. I value human rights because they are the basis for our legal system. When the basic human rights of any given group are not respected and protected, our very legal system is in danger.


The point of the scenarios is to show one just how arbitrary their position is, or (hopefully) to get them to spell out plainly what it is about life, and human life in particular, that guides their beliefs about how we should behave towards it. In the latter case, one will almost always discover that everything they hold to be valuable about life is not present in an embryo or a fetus.

The point of all logical fallacy is to present something that appears to be an argument in lieu of an actual rational argument. Can you, or can you not present a rational argument in support of allowing one human being kill another human being without judicial review and without legal consequence for any or no reason? If you can, then proceed. If you can't why did you engage me in the first place? If your position is the result of a knee jerk emotional reaction to to the issue of abortion or something as sad as emotional hand wringing, I perfectly understand and you are certainly entitled to your beliefs, or faith, or myth or whatever fantasy you tell yourself. But don't present them as if they represent or approximate sound reasoning and common sense.

wilbur
03-13-2009, 04:14 PM
It was an observation. You made the claim that you must be right because a large number of people agree with you while making no attempt to argue why a large number agree with you.

I was pointing out a fact, not justifying my beliefs. Nowhere did I even come close to saying 'the world agrees with me, therefore pro-choice philosophy is great!'. You just seem to be fishing for points to gripe about here. At the time, didn't want to be drawn back into another epic abortion thread arguing about the same stuff (so much for that) and was content to simply leave most of the issues unanswered, except with the little gloaty bit.



There was time when the majority may have agreed with you that the earth was flat but the fact that many thought the same thing is irrelavent to the fact of the actual shape of the earth.

So far, I have only seen you attempt to justify it with logical fallacies. I would be interested in seeing a rational argument in support of allowing one human being to kill another without judicial review and without legal consequence for any or no reason.

Proceed.

Well, actually, I havent been really trying to do much to justify pro-choice... I've been getting pro-lifers to enumerate their beleifs (or trying too anyways) beyond the typical 'abortion is murder!!!11 A fetus is human!!!11'... and attempting to show them their flaws.

I've enumerated at length about my views in greater detail in other epic length threads... and have not much interest in re-typing them.

If you want to know where I stand, I generally agree with the philosophical arguments from personhood. I more or less go for Peter Singer's philosophies on the 'sanctity of life'... but don't follow him all the way into his realm of animal rights.

wilbur
03-13-2009, 04:57 PM
And like with all logical fallacies, the explanation proves the fallacy. The "why" is absolutely and completely irrelavant. The why speaks to knee jerk emotional reactions rather than any rational thought. An emotional reaction is the worst possible way to make any rational determination. The "why" opens the door to a host of other fallacious arguments beginning with the inevetable straw man and proceeding from there.


Well, as with all thought experiments... nothing maps to reality quite perfectly. But as it is, no one here is in an actual burning building being forced to make a choice. Everyone here has all the time in the world to think about and weigh the pros and cons of their possible decisions. The nature of these thought experiments let us examine these things without the emotional attachment or knee jerk reactions that we would have in real situations.. thats the point.

Seriously, if I had known I would have to belabor on and on over on such a simple concept, I never would have gone this route in the first place.



Prove that.


Well, in the case of Mystic, I did. We finally drew it out that he values other life because of things like its capacities for suffering, needs and wants, etc.... not simply the arbitrary label (though he is trying to have it both ways).



In a literal sense they are as human as they will ever be. Don't confuse me with a pro lifer. I am not. I am anti abortion on demand so pro life arguments are meaningless and not applicable to me. I find pro life arguments as spurious as pro choice arguments. My arguments are based firmly in science and the law. I never suggest that life is sacred, or attempt to make moral questions. To do so would render my postion as indefensible as your own.


Snuggle Bunny is that you?



You aren't talking to a pro lifer. You are talking to an anti abortion on demand advocate. I have no interest in pro life arguments. I value human rights because they are the basis for our legal system. When the basic human rights of any given group are not respected and protected, our very legal system is in danger.

Well, the people would be in danger... our legal system would be just fine. But in the end, I am more disquieted by a legal system that would force, in a one-sided way, such an immensely personal, complicated philosophical decision upon a woman... one which will never ever be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.

A quote from the actual Roe V Wade decision: "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at consensus as to when life begins, the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."



The point of all logical fallacy is to present something that appears to be an argument in lieu of an actual rational argument. Can you, or can you not present a rational argument in support of allowing one human being kill another human being without judicial review and without legal consequence for any or no reason? If you can, then proceed. If you can't why did you engage me in the first place?

And over zealous accusations of logical fallacies are fallacious themselves.


If your position is the result of a knee jerk emotional reaction to to the issue of abortion or something as sad as emotional hand wringing, I perfectly understand and you are certainly entitled to your beliefs, or faith, or myth or whatever fantasy you tell yourself. But don't present them as if they represent or approximate sound reasoning and common sense.

So presumably, your ideal would be to have women go before a the state, and lay out their reasons for pursuing an abortion? Then leave it to the whims of the state to grant or deny permission?

palerider
03-13-2009, 05:48 PM
Well, in the case of Mystic, I did. We finally drew it out that he values other life because of things like its capacities for suffering, needs and wants, etc.... not simply the arbitrary label (though he is trying to have it both ways).

Actually what you proved was that you can draw mystic into a false dilemma. Nothing more, nothing less. Again I challenge you to prove your statement.


A quote from the actual Roe V Wade decision: "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at consensus as to when life begins, the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Interesting that you would single out the one quote that calls into question the whole case. The justices admit freely that they do not know, hence, they made a decision in a state of uncertainty violating both their judicial and ethical responsibilities to never make a decision in a state of uncertainty when great harm can result.

Aside from that admission, suggesting that they don't know whether life begins because scientists, philospophers, and theologians don't agree is a specious argument on its face. Tell me, when someone is unconscious and we need to know if they are alive or dead, do we call a philosopher or a theologian to make the determination or a medical scientist? When a creature is found and we are unsure what it is, do we bring it to a theologian or a philosopher to make a determination as to what it is and whether it is living or not? They may as well have argued that they were unsure because science, musicians, and shipmakers don't agree. Only science had the necessary credentials to determine whether an unborn at any stage is a living human being or not.

Perhaps a more interesting, and relevant quote from the roe decision is this one:

"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Perhaps at the time, no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment. In the time since, however, a rather large, and growing body of legal precedent has come into being that answers the suggestion of personhood in spades. There are people sitting in prison today who were charged, tried , convicted and sentenced separately and specifically for criminal homicide in the deaths of unborns. In this country, you can't even be charged, much less tried and convicted of any sort of criminal homicide unless you have, IN FACT, killed a person. According to the court itself, roe is no longer a valid decision.


And over zealous accusations of logical fallacies are fallacious themselves.

Did you make that up all by yourself?


So presumably, your ideal would be to have women go before a the state, and lay out their reasons for pursuing an abortion? Then leave it to the whims of the state to grant or deny permission?

Give each unborn his or her day in court and show just cause that they should be put to death, give them the requisite suite of appeals that everyone else is entitled to and if the court finds just cause for termination, you won't hear another word from me on the topic of abortion.

palerider
03-13-2009, 05:55 PM
If you want to know where I stand, I generally agree with the philosophical arguments from personhood. I more or less go for Peter Singer's philosophies on the 'sanctity of life'... but don't follow him all the way into his realm of animal rights.

Peter Singer? The man who opposes killing animals but would, without a second thought, repeal the personhood of the disabled? Are you kidding? Peter Singer's philosophical view falls flat on its face. If you care to argue the philospophy of personhood, I will be glad to oblige after you admit that you are unable to offer up a rational argument in support of your position.

PoliCon
03-13-2009, 07:07 PM
wilbur . . . you did not just appeal to the record of an eugenicist . . . did you?? wow . . . .

wilbur
03-13-2009, 08:02 PM
Peter Singer? The man who opposes killing animals but would, without a second thought, repeal the personhood of the disabled? Are you kidding? Peter Singer's philosophical view falls flat on its face. If you care to argue the philospophy of personhood, I will be glad to oblige after you admit that you are unable to offer up a rational argument in support of your position.

Then what would be the point in discussing it?

Every single point you have raised, fear of the legal system, infringing upon right to life, etc, applies moreso to the being that is actually capable of experience (ie, the woman)... especially compared to a being that does not exist yet.

And before bring it up, I don't generally agree with abortion after 20-22 weeks or so.. most everyone else here knows that because of previous discussions.

As far as Peter Singer goes, I don't agree with everything he says, but his descriptions and philosophies behind personhood are solid... but he is one of the most misquoted, mischaracterized philosophers out there... he stands contrary to the alleged 'culture of life' brigade (who is really nothing of the sort), and draws their vitriol like no other. There is little those supposed bastions of morality won't distort, pervert, or outright lie about when it comes to people like Singer. More words than not that I have read about him actually turn out to be complete fabrications... but you would actually have to read what he writes to know this.

And you claim to be using science to back up your position? Ok.... please let me know of the kind of experiment you would use to scientifically deduce the value of human life.

wilbur
03-13-2009, 08:04 PM
wilbur . . . you did not just appeal to the record of an eugenicist . . . did you?? wow . . . .

Another great example of a complete fabrication. Wrong, he's not a eugenicist.

FlaGator
03-13-2009, 08:33 PM
Because when you try to justify your position, you will simply fall back to 'the fetus is a baby'.

Wether or not a fetus is a baby is not contingent upon the circumstances which lead to its creation. Hence, the circumstances that lead to its creation are not relevant when making a judgement on the rights of a fetus. It seems you guys have listened to your own rhetoric for so long, you don't even give pause for thought to what it actually means anymore.



Practice up on some reading comprehension my friend ;) How exactly is being skeptical of miracle stories, which have no more historical support than legends of vampires, dragons, ghosts or UFO's, inconsistent with my worldview? Judging the 'evidence' for your resurrection myth with the same skeptical eye as anything else is not inconsistent. The exact opposite, actually. You want to claim I'm inconsistent because I don't grant special status to your weak evidence... but those are your inconsistencies.. not mine.



Its a schtick you fall back to quite readily. Its a red herring, always has been, and will be. It makes you feel like your making good points, but its an evasion. But most of all, its a way for pro-lifers to continue their pattern of dehumanization of women... so they don't have to feel guilty about many of the horrible situations they would thrust women into as a result of their policies.



This is not an argument. There are innumerable situations where we allow leniency to escape the full effects of the consequences of an irresponsible act, in every single walk of life... in our judicial system, in our social interactions... probably even in the military. We allow leniency for first time criminal offenders. People can get to treat their STDs. How is BC even allowable in this sense, since it is simply designed from the ground up to avoid the consequences of sex.

If the fetus is not a baby, there is NO need to force woman to carry it to term, period. Consequence/convenience are irrelevant. If the fetus IS a baby, there is NO need to justify it's life by claiming it's a consequence.. its life is justified enough on its own merits. Again, consequence/convenience are irrelevant. Your points are moot.

These are not positions that I fall back on. They are just a couple of several reasons why abortion is wrong. You refuse to accept that and you make excuses. I see it and just about everyone else sees it. You, my friend, are blind to the validity of other points of view. You are one of those people who have to justify abortion in order to ease your own conscience. Your attempt to defend the undefensible is somewhat admirable in that you persist. But you don't really comprehend a moral view of this subject because to do so might force you to look at your own life. Is there fear the you might find blood on your hands?

You can tell yourself that my views and the views of others here are moot or that you have resoundly defeated them, but you are the only one who believes that. That fact that I asked you to provide me a sitiuation where some is allowed to walk way from their agreed to responsibilities and you provided me with a lame explanation on how leniency is shown to people. You never gave me an example of what I asked for which is all you had to do. I suspect that just like before you have no valid examples. So abortion seems to bet the only instance in life where the consequences of our actions can be voided for convenience sake. Why is that I wonder?

FlaGator
03-13-2009, 08:39 PM
Well, we appreciate you dropping by and bringing your little 'logical fallacies for dummies' book with you... but you need to practice picking them out a little more.
That was more of a gloat...

I justify pro-choice by using sound reasoning and common sense... I never tried to justify pro-choice by appealing to popularity.. The pro-life/pro-choice battle has ostensibly been won, and thats all I really said.

That's a laugh! It was not won on it's own merits. If it would have stated a state's rights issue most states would have keep it illegal. It won the day by having the right removed from the states under federal privacy laws. I wouldn't say it one because the SCOTUS thought it was a moral or amoral act.

FlaGator
03-13-2009, 08:41 PM
Peter Singer? The man who opposes killing animals but would, without a second thought, repeal the personhood of the disabled? Are you kidding? Peter Singer's philosophical view falls flat on its face. If you care to argue the philospophy of personhood, I will be glad to oblige after you admit that you are unable to offer up a rational argument in support of your position.

Careful, he'll dodge the question and the say it won the debate later. At that point your argument is either moot, irrelevant or lacks consistency. :D

wilbur
03-13-2009, 10:07 PM
These are not positions that I fall back on. They are just a couple of several reasons why abortion is wrong. You refuse to accept that and you make excuses.


Then answer these:

Do you believe life and rights begin at conception?

Can anything revoke those rights?

Finally, do circumstances which lead to conception change nature of the life inside the womb to such a degree that those rights are altered in some way?



I see it and just about everyone else sees it. You, my friend, are blind to the validity of other points of view.

Oh, I think thats an appeal to popularity (but it only works in this case if you don't look outside certain right wing circles). ;)



You are one of those people who have to justify abortion in order to ease your own conscience. Your attempt to defend the undefensible is somewhat admirable in that you persist. But you don't really comprehend a moral view of this subject because to do so might force you to look at your own life. Is there fear the you might find blood on your hands?


Of course not.... my conscience would probably give me trouble if I were to concede in the face of pro-life totalitarianism.



You can tell yourself that my views and the views of others here are moot or that you have resoundly defeated them, but you are the only one who believes that. That fact that I asked you to provide me a sitiuation where some is allowed to walk way from their agreed to responsibilities and you provided me with a lame explanation on how leniency is shown to people. You never gave me an example of what I asked for which is all you had to do. I suspect that just like before you have no valid examples. So abortion seems to bet the only instance in life where the consequences of our actions can be voided for convenience sake. Why is that I wonder?

Are you seriously, honestly, truly going to claim that we as a society, as inviduals, as people actually always make sure that the consequences of every single act of irresponsibility must be experienced by a person? Are you joking? Ever been pulled over for speeding and let off with a warning?

palerider
03-14-2009, 06:57 AM
Then what would be the point in discussing it?

The point is to explore how tragically mistaken his philosopical view of personhood is. The point is to test his and your ideas against opposing ideas and see how they fare. The point is to see if his views are rational or self serving. The point is exactly the point of philosophical thinking.


Every single point you have raised, fear of the legal system, infringing upon right to life, etc, applies moreso to the being that is actually capable of experience (ie, the woman)... especially compared to a being that does not exist yet.

I have looked at our constitution and find no such qualifications or prerequisites listed. When I review all of the founding documents I do find reference to the country being established on the idea that we are all "CREATED'" equal and that our government was instituted to protect all equally. It is easy as pie to say that they apply only to those who can experience, but a whole different matter to prove it and if you are going to deny an entire class of human beings thier most basic human rights, the onus is damned well on you to prove beyond any doubt that the rights of man only apply to those who are able to appreciate them.


And before bring it up, I don't generally agree with abortion after 20-22 weeks or so.. most everyone else here knows that because of previous discussions.

How caucasian of you. Do you also object to euthanasia before the age of 80? The child is not more human at 22 weeks than it was at conception. It has grown and is more mature, but thus far, you have not proven that our very right to live is tied to our level of maturity.


As far as Peter Singer goes, I don't agree with everything he says, but his descriptions and philosophies behind personhood are solid... but he is one of the most misquoted, mischaracterized philosophers out there... he stands contrary to the alleged 'culture of life' brigade (who is really nothing of the sort), and draws their vitriol like no other. There is little those supposed bastions of morality won't distort, pervert, or outright lie about when it comes to people like Singer. More words than not that I have read about him actually turn out to be complete fabrications... but you would actually have to read what he writes to know this.

Sorry but they are not and if you find them solid, you are a shallow thinker indeed. If you care to start a philosophical discussion on the idea of personhood, I will be all to happy to participate and prove to you that singer's ideas simply don't foat.

And again, I am not a member of the culture of life as much as you may wish I were. I am anti abortion on demand and the strawman of the "culture of life" has no meaning to me. If you aren't able to discuss the issue with me directly, rather than through the filter of the culture of life, then you have lost and we may as well quit here. I am not making culture of life, or religious arguments here. My arguments are founded in science and the law and a strrict line of rational thought. If you can't handle that, then say so.


And you claim to be using science to back up your position? Ok.... please let me know of the kind of experiment you would use to scientifically deduce the value of human life.

No such experiment is needed as our right to live isn't based on any value. Our legal system is based on the principle that we are all created equal therefore until we actually grow to the point that we begin to earn our way in the world, we are all of equal value if you are speaking in the monetary sense. If you are speaking in some ethereal, unprovable, philosophical sense, no one human being ever becomes more valuable than another. Again, if you believe you can PROVE otherwise, by all means, lets hear your argument.

palerider
03-14-2009, 07:15 AM
Then answer these:

Do you believe life and rights begin at conception?

Whether life begins at conception is not a matter of belief. It is an observed fact. Any belief or faith that suggests otherwise is no more than flat eartherism. Of course, do feel free to provide some credible science that states explicitly that human beings metamorphose from something else into human beings at some point in their life.

As to rights, our founding document says that we are all created equal, not that we are all born equal and suggests that we are endowed at our creation with certain unalienable rights; not that we are born with certain unalienable rights. The founders certainly knew the basics of developmental biology as fetology was a known science at the time and ithey were perfectly able and knowledgable enough to have stated "born" if that was their intent.


Can anything revoke those rights?

Of course. Read the 5th and 14th amendment to the constitution.

5th amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th amendment

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The nature of our legal system is that rights may be denied if law is duely written and legislated that specifically enumerates which right is to be denied, from whom it is to be denied, and for what reason it is to be denied and then, the individual is tried on suspiciion of breaking that law in accordance with the rules of the court. If found guilty, then the rights may legally be withdrawn.


Finally, do circumstances which lead to conception change nature of the life inside the womb to such a degree that those rights are altered in some way?

You are kidding right? Did you get that piece of idiocy from singer? You are suggesting that the actions of two people can in some manner alter the rights of a third. What could myself and anyone else in the word do that would, in any way, alter your human rights?


Oh, I think thats an appeal to popularity (but it only works in this case if you don't look outside certain right wing circles). ;)

You are right. It was an appeal to popularity.


Of course not.... my conscience would probably give me trouble if I were to concede in the face of pro-life totalitarianism.

Ah, poisoning the well, appeal to riducle, begging the question and an ad hominem attack all at once. Thus far, you have not proven totalitarianism nor will you. Thus far, you have proven nothing more than that you are a flat earther in the first degree. You have offered not one single fact that supports your position.


Are you seriously, honestly, truly going to claim that we as a society, as inviduals, as people actually always make sure that the consequences of every single act of irresponsibility must be experienced by a person? Are you joking? Ever been pulled over for speeding and let off with a warning?

I knew you had a red herring in you. Whether or not we as a society have insured that every injustice has been investigated and righted has absolutely nothing to do with the facts as they apply to abortion. It is becoming increasingly clear that you, in fact, can not present a rational argument in support of your position.

That being said, I look forward to tearing your philosopical argument on personhood into tiny, easily digestible pieces for you.

palerider
03-14-2009, 07:17 AM
Careful, he'll dodge the question and the say it won the debate later. At that point your argument is either moot, irrelevant or lacks consistency. :D

No problem. I am afraid that wilbur has brought a nail clipper to an intellectual gunfight.

Mythic
03-14-2009, 02:34 PM
As you see, Mythic mentioned the existence of personal relationships and loved ones, as to why he would value a human being over hundreds of smaller human beings.
Just as you or most any other person would save a loved one over 100 other strangers. However, saving the strangers would be a very noble thing to do, but few people have it in them to do that. Unfortunately, I do not think I do.


Well, in the case of Mystic, I did. We finally drew it out that he values other life because of things like its capacities for suffering, needs and wants, etc.... not simply the arbitrary label (though he is trying to have it both ways).
Please spell my name right ;). You are absolutely correct that I value other non-human life based on all of the capacities you are talking about. Most people do, because the closer another animal is to a human, the more worth people tend to give to that animal.
But I do not value human life along those lines. Every human has the right to live, and I do not see it mentioned anywhere in law that a person will not have the right to live simply because not all human characteristics have been developed.

I have to hand it to you wilbur; you are arguing with three people at the same time.


That being said, I look forward to tearing your philosopical argument on personhood into tiny, easily digestible pieces for you.
:eek::eek:

palerider
03-14-2009, 02:48 PM
Just as you or most any other person would save a loved one over 100 other strangers. However, saving the strangers would be a very noble thing to do, but few people have it in them to do that. Unfortunately, I do not think I do.

Of course. Any of us might have our own personal reasons for saving an individual or individuals over others. Our human rights, and the laws that are put in place to protect them, however, are not, and should not be dependent upon personal feelings. That fact further highlights the irrelavancy of wilbur's false dilemma.


I have to hand it to you wilbur; you are arguing with three people at the same time.

Not very well though. If one isn't constrained by rationality, or presenting facts to support one's position, it is no problem to arue with dozens at the same time. Off the cuff remarks and unfounded, unsupportable arguments are easy to toss out at a prolific rate. Aside from that, it seems that wilbur has run away from his discussion with me. For future reference, does he always cut and run when it becomes obvious to him that he is losing badly?

Mythic
03-14-2009, 02:56 PM
For future reference, does he always cut and run when it becomes obvious to him that he is losing badly?
He ended his argument with me on page 7. He never responded to all my counter arguments. I even made my own hypothetical situation for him :(.

palerider
03-14-2009, 03:04 PM
He ended his argument with me on page 7. He never responded to all my counter arguments. I even made my own hypothetical situation for him :(.

Typical. He started off with me all bluster and was practically mewling by the time he asked what was the point of arguing if I though that singer was an idiot.

Mythic
03-14-2009, 03:06 PM
The point in arguing for wilbur would be to prove that singer isn't and idiot. Good luck with that though...

palerider
03-14-2009, 03:50 PM
The point in arguing for wilbur would be to prove that singer isn't and idiot. Good luck with that though...


I don't believe singer's philosophical views can be rationally supported. There is a reason that he doesn't do public debates anymore.

wilbur
03-14-2009, 05:48 PM
Whether life begins at conception is not a matter of belief. It is an observed fact. Any belief or faith that suggests otherwise is no more than flat eartherism. Of course, do feel free to provide some credible science that states explicitly that human beings metamorphose from something else into human beings at some point in their life.


'Life begins at conception' is a non-sensical phrase. The definition of life itself is ambiguous at best, even scientifically... life can really only be best described, scientifically, by certain properties that certain arrangements of matter seem to have... but not as a thing, a moment, or an event. And in this way, there is nothing more living or alive about a zygote or an embryo than a sperm or an egg. So, it's incorrect to think of 'conception' as one distinct moment we can observe and explicitly point too and say 'there is now life where there wasn't before'! In fact, no life is created during conception at all.... what was already alive changes form yet again... and it doesn't change from one fixed state to another, it simply moves onward in its continual motion of constant metamorphosis that is the life cycle. Life doesn't even agreeably abide by our attempts to rigidly define a moment of death as a distinct and discernible event. Life is far more messy than the words we use to describe it.

Science shows us, with monumental clarity, that trying to pin the beginning of human life (much less rights) on some biologically messy and undefinable moment of conception is as arbitrary as any other.... conception isn't even a moment, its a process... that being the case, you do not escape any slippery legal slopes this way. Nor does conception help us define what about life, human or otherwise, causes it to enjoy special ethical treatment. Your definition of 'life's beginning' is as arbitrary as any other, and always subject to reinterpretation or redefinition at the hands of science and philosophy.

So then how do we figure a better way? It cannot be contested that we have different ethical rules of engagement when it comes to life and non-life. Even further still, we generally have different types of ethical rules for engaging with different types of life. Our behavior towards other living things is not arbitrary.. it is only a subset of living things that have very specific, and certain properties that compel us to behave differently towards them than we would any inanimate object. This is where personhood comes in. Personhood is simply a description of the properties of life that compel us to treat some forms of life with some 'elevated' codes of ethics. The largest and foremost quality there is the capability to suffer, but also desires, needs and wants, and ability to experience. The rational thing to do, when trying to determine how we should treat a living thing, is to try to try and discover if it has these properties and where these properties emerge in the life cycle (of any organism, not just human), or at the very least, the point at which we are not certain these things do not exist. And we can be certain they do not exist prior to 20-22 weeks of development in a human fetus.

Personhood ensures that any being with personhood will always require ethical treatment from us, period... and that no being with personhood will be subject to a being without personhood. Trying to use the idea of conception, or species membership will almost get us to that point... but it has other nasty side effects, such as the misogynistic transformation of a women into incubators for the state against their will. It also causes us to decouple our treatment of life from the principles which, even if not acknowledged explicitly by certain people, guide our behavior towards living beings. So we have people claiming its the moral thing to do to prolong any life at any cost, regardless of the suffering involved or even the wishes of the person. In short, it causes persons to be subjugated by non-persons who neither require nor deserve equal ethical considerations.

*And just in case you are going to go for the typical rebuttal here.... yes, a coma patient has a developed personhood, or an unconscious person has a developed personhood etc so we must treat them like persons. Temporary incapacitation of an existing personhood does not negate its existence any more than breaking a leg negates the existence of your legs.



As to rights, our founding document says that we are all created equal, not that we are all born equal and suggests that we are endowed at our creation with certain unalienable rights; not that we are born with certain unalienable rights. The founders certainly knew the basics of developmental biology as fetology was a known science at the time and ithey were perfectly able and knowledgable enough to have stated "born" if that was their intent.


It doesn't say we are 'conceived' equal either, and they also refer to 'man'.. not zygote, not fetus.



No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The nature of our legal system is that rights may be denied if law is duely written and legislated that specifically enumerates which right is to be denied, from whom it is to be denied, and for what reason it is to be denied and then, the individual is tried on suspiciion of breaking that law in accordance with the rules of the court. If found guilty, then the rights may legally be withdrawn.


Operative word: person.

You send mixed messages here... Sometimes I have the impression that you arent so much concerned for the welfare of the fetus, zygote or embryo beyond the fact that you feel it is a slipper slope because of the wording of our founding documents, or our legal code. But in other cases you argue as you are towing the typical pro-life rhetoric. Can you clarify? Edit: nevermind.. saw other posts

Before I get to this bit, may I suggest to you that you read my posts more carefully, and also realize you might be missing context when addressing my comments to other people. Its getting tiring having to correct so many serial misinterpretations of my comments, as is the case below, and with your initial foray into this thread.



You are kidding right? Did you get that piece of idiocy from singer? You are suggesting that the actions of two people can in some manner alter the rights of a third. What could myself and anyone else in the word do that would, in any way, alter your human rights?


Quite the contrary, I have been trying to explain to FlaGator his arguments of personal responsibility are irrelevant to the morality of abortion if one believes 'life begins at conception'. What you just labeled as idiotic seems to be more or less his position... that abortion is wrong, in part, because it allows the woman to duck some unwritten duty she has to the universe to live with the consequences of sex (but only if that consequence is pregnancy, puzzlingly enough... she's free to terminate an STD with medical treatment if she chooses).





Ah, poisoning the well, appeal to riducle, begging the question and an ad hominem attack all at once. Thus far, you have not proven totalitarianism nor will you. Thus far, you have proven nothing more than that you are a flat earther in the first degree. You have offered not one single fact that supports your position.


A loaded question deserved a loaded response.





I knew you had a red herring in you. Whether or not we as a society have insured that every injustice has been investigated and righted has absolutely nothing to do with the facts as they apply to abortion. It is becoming increasingly clear that you, in fact, can not present a rational argument in support of your position.


The red herring is not my own, and again, you haven't bothered to fill yourself in on the context. FlaGator seems to want to claim that abortion is the only instance in society where we allow a person to escape the full consequences of irresponsible actions... and for some reason this contributes to the wrongness of the act... killing what he views as a person. The cherry on top for me is that there is enormous precedent in society for letting people escape the full burden of their consequences in many cases (when the imposition of that burden is something we have the power to relieve). This is especially true when the act of irresponsibility is trivially easy and understandable, and when some of the consequences can be profoundly life altering in a disproportionate way.

In either case, whether a fetus is a person or not, is not affected by the actions that lead to its creation.

wilbur
03-14-2009, 06:03 PM
Typical. He started off with me all bluster and was practically mewling by the time he asked what was the point of arguing if I though that singer was an idiot.

As Mythic said... I am generally fighting one vs many here... I do my best to get them all, I do not like leaving points unanswered. But time and need to preserve sanity and blood pressure prevail sometimes.

And you really need to work on reading comprehension.

And your zeal to meticulously hunt and manufacture logical fallacies in only my posts, while ignoring the absolutely blatant ones in all the others suggests something personal is going on here... obviously a nerve has been struck somewhere. Take a chill pill, man.

PoliCon
03-14-2009, 06:11 PM
Another great example of a complete fabrication. Wrong, he's not a eugenicist.

He's not an eugenicist like Al Gore isn't a global warming alarmist. :rolleyes:

wilbur
03-14-2009, 06:14 PM
He's not an eugenicist like Al Gore isn't a global warming alarmist. :rolleyes:

As if you would actually know.

PoliCon
03-14-2009, 06:16 PM
As if you would actually know.

If Gore is a global warming alarmist? Or if Peter singer is a eugenicist?

wilbur
03-14-2009, 06:20 PM
If Gore is a global warming alarmist? Or if Peter singer is a eugenicist?

The latter. I don't disagree to the former. But then again, you still might not know that either.

Mythic
03-14-2009, 06:40 PM
Personhood is simply a description of the properties of life that compel us to treat some forms of life with some 'elevated' codes of ethics. The largest and foremost quality there is the capability to suffer, but also desires, needs and wants, and ability to experience. The rational thing to do is to try to try and discover where these properties emerge in the life cycle (of any organism, not just human), or at the very least, the point at which we are not certain these things do not exist. And we can be certain they do not exist prior to 20-22 weeks of development in a human fetus.
There would be no personhood without the embryo/fetus. Where does this personhood come from? How is it created?

Temporary incapacitation of an existing personhood does not negate its existence any more than breaking a leg negates the existence of your legs.

So as long as a human has had the attributes of personhood at one point in his life, he is a person? And if these attributes are still developing the human is not a person? A growing fetus is still developing all of the attributes of personhood you describe. What right do we have to stop that development? By killing a fetus we are denying the chance for personhood to exist at all. If somebody was poor, should we not allow them to become rich simply because they were never rich before? A fetus does not have this personhood at the start, and you believe that because of that it should not have the opportunity to reach personhood. The logic you use is absurd.


It doesn't say we are 'conceived' equal either, and they also refer to 'man'.. not zygote, not fetus.
"Conceived" is a synonym of "created".

Operative word: person.
The definition of a person simply means a human being.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person

wilbur
03-14-2009, 07:02 PM
There would be no personhood without the embryo/fetus. Where does this personhood come from? How is it created?


It doesn't make sense to me to treat a being that has potential to have those capacities as if it actually has those capacities. None at all.



So as long as a human has had the attributes of personhood at one point in his life, he is a person?

No. Terry Schiavo was an example of one who was still technically alive, human, and once had personhood, but no longer had personhood (after the accident of course).



And if these attributes are still developing the human is not a person?


Correct.



A growing fetus is still developing all of the attributes of personhood you describe. What right do we have to stop that development? By killing a fetus we are denying the chance for personhood to exist at all. If somebody was poor, should we not allow them to become rich simply because they were never rich before?


How on earth does that relate to the topic at hand? I've laid out the a basic case for personhood and that anyone with it deserves ethical treatment. Do try to think about what I say before you make nonsense rebuttals. Rich and poor both have personhood... so what is it specifically in the personhood philosophy that you think would require us to set up a caste system?


A fetus does not have this personhood at the start, and you believe that because of that it should not have the opportunity to reach personhood. The logic you use is absurd.


Well, we know you think this already.. but you need to prove it.

PoliCon
03-14-2009, 07:40 PM
The latter. I don't disagree to the former. But then again, you still might not know that either.pray tell - what is the difference between the policies and positions of peter singer and the policies and positions of eugenics?

wilbur
03-14-2009, 08:07 PM
pray tell - what is the difference between the policies and positions of peter singer and the policies and positions of eugenics?

There are two areas that I have seen his arguments mistaken for eugenics.

Eugenics is the employment of artificial selection to 'improve' the fitness of the human race. Sometimes that means controlled breeding, or situations like the old stories of ancient Sparta, and the discarding babies who were weak.

Eugenics accusations come into play when he talks about euthanasia of newborns. Peter Singer, as far as I have seen, argues for the acceptance of euthanasia of newborns no differently than when he argues that euthanasia can be acceptable and moral under certain circumstances for adults. In these cases, the newborns would generally die on their own very soon already, with no extraordinary medical intervention... and with medical intervention would live only a short time, in extreme pain, with severe handicaps. He argues that in these cases it is humane and moral to not simply let the children die of their own accord, as is permissible already, and actually actively euthanize them.... and he argues there isn't a significant moral gap between withholding life preserving medical treatment and actively ending the life.. well, except that it is worse to withhold treatment instead of ending the life when there is pain and suffering involved. You may not agree, but that is definitely not even close to eugenics.

He also speculates quite a bit about the future and what our ethics should be in regards to the future possibilities of genetic tinkering of embryos and fetuses. He has said that he believes in such a world where 'designer babies' are possible, it would widen the gap between classes. Rich people could afford to have all genetic defects and disabilities removed or even have the capabilities of their in utero children enhanced, while the poor would most likely not be able to afford such things. He has argued that such procedures should be available to all and subsidized for those who cannot afford them (should they ever come about) OR they should be available to no one. In such a world, the american dream might no longer be attainable by hard work or perseverance, but by the wealth of your parents and their ability to enhance you in the womb. A pretty chilling idea when you think about it.

I'm not sure, but I think because he doesn't outright condemn the possibility of genetic tinkering in utero, and in some cases seems to think it could be a positive thing, he is a 'eugenicist'. But its still not even close

Don't get me wrong.... Singer has said some NUTTY things... but then again..so have most people.. even those who i immensely respect... but he's immensely more sensible than his critics would tell you. I don't endorse everything he says, nor do I discount everything he says based on those few nutty things.

PoliCon
03-14-2009, 08:29 PM
There are two areas that I have seen his arguments mistaken for eugenics.

Eugenics is the employment of artificial selection to 'improve' the fitness of the human race. Sometimes that means controlled breeding, or situations like the old stories of ancient Sparta, and the discarding babies who were weak.

Eugenics accusations come into play when he talks about euthanasia of newborns. Peter Singer, as far as I have seen, argues for the acceptance of euthanasia of newborns no differently than when he argues that euthanasia can be acceptable and moral under certain circumstances for adults. In these cases, the newborns would generally die on their own very soon already, with no extraordinary medical intervention... and with medical intervention would live only a short time, in extreme pain, with severe handicaps. He argues that in these cases it is humane and moral to not simply let the children die of their own accord, as is permissible already, and actually actively euthanize them.... and he argues there isn't a significant moral gap between withholding life preserving medical treatment and actively ending the life.. well, except that it is worse to withhold treatment instead of ending the life when there is pain and suffering involved. You may not agree, but that is definitely not even close to eugenics.

He also speculates quite a bit about the future and what our ethics should be in regards to the future possibilities of genetic tinkering of embryos and fetuses. He has said that he believes in such a world where 'designer babies' are possible, it would widen the gap between classes. Rich people could afford to have all genetic defects and disabilities removed or even have the capabilities of their in utero children enhanced, while the poor would most likely not be able to afford such things. He has argued that such procedures should be available to all and subsidized for those who cannot afford them (should they ever come about) OR they should be available to no one. In such a world, the american dream might no longer be attainable by hard work or perseverance, but by the wealth of your parents and their ability to enhance you in the womb. A pretty chilling idea when you think about it.

I'm not sure, but I think because he doesn't outright condemn the possibility of genetic tinkering in utero, and in some cases seems to think it could be a positive thing, he is a 'eugenicist'. But its still not even close

Don't get me wrong.... Singer has said some NUTTY things... but then again..so have most people.. even those who i immensely respect... but he's immensely more sensible than his critics would tell you. I don't endorse everything he says, nor do I discount everything he says based on those few nutty things.
You have a very skewed view of eugenics wilbur. You're seeing the Nazi version - the FORMAL version as the totality of the movement. Eugenics is at it's core the "science" of darwinism applied to the human species. Singer is advocating just that. He values human life on it's ability to "be productive" as does eugenics. He believes that humanity should be improved by reducing and eliminating undesirable traits and condition - so does eugenics. He supports the idea of abortion on demand - so does eugenics. Are you going to say that because he has not come flat out and embraced the term that he is not an eugenicist? :rolleyes:

palerider
03-14-2009, 08:30 PM
'Life begins at conception' is a non-sensical phrase. The definition of life itself is ambiguous at best, even scientifically... life can really only be best described, scientifically, by certain properties that certain arrangements of matter seem to have... but not as a thing, a moment, or an event.

Clearly, your eduicational background is not in the biological sciences. The definition of life is straight forward and simple enough for even a child to grasp. Allow me. Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Unborns meet the above criteria from their earliest moments. I am sure that you wish life were some ethereal, hard to grasp thing that could be argued about indefinately, but alas, it is not. Science has come a long way since the 15th century where your ideas of life apparently come from.


And in this way, there is nothing more living or alive about a zygote or an embryo than a sperm or an egg.

Once again, very easy to say, but an entirely different matter to prove. I am still waiting for some credible science that suggests that unborns at any stage of development are something other than living human beings. Your uneducated, unsupported, uncorroborated opinion simply doesn't carry any weight. Either you can support your claims or you can't. Which is it?


So, it's incorrect to think of 'conception' as one distinct moment we can observe and explicitly point too and say 'there is now life where there wasn't before'! In fact, no life is created during conception at all.... what was already alive changes form yet again... and it doesn't change from one fixed state to another, it simply moves onward in its continual motion of constant metamorphosis that is the life cycle. Life doesn't even agreeably abide by our attempts to rigidly define a moment of death as a distinct and discernible event. Life is far more messy than the words we use to describe it.

I am afraid that your lack of knowledge of the birds and the bees is even more abysmally lacking than I thought. The whole life is a continuium argument is one of the silliest, and most shallow, poorly thought out arguments that the pro choice side tosses about and exposes your lack of knowledge so explicitly that I am surprised that any of you would even speak it.

Of course sperm are alive and of course eggs are alive. Conception does not mark the beginning of life, conception marks the beginning of an individual's life. An individual who is alive, and a human being and entitled to the basic rights afforded to all human beings.


Science shows us, with monumental clarity, that trying to pin the beginning of human life (much less rights) on some biologically messy and undefinable moment of conception is as arbitrary as any other.... conception isn't even a moment, its a process... that being the case, you do not escape any slippery legal slopes this way. Nor does conception help us define what about life, human or otherwise, causes it to enjoy special ethical treatment. Your definition of 'life's beginning' is as arbitrary as any other, and always subject to reinterpretation or redefinition at the hands of science and philosophy.

Sorry guy. If you had any knowledge of the biological sciences you would recognize the difference between a continuium of life and the beginning of an individual's life. Your silly assed argument fails. Next.


So then how do we figure a better way? It cannot be contested that we have different ethical rules of engagement when it comes to life and non-life.

Sorry, but from this point on, your lips are moving but nothing is coming out. The whole argument begs the question and simply assumes that unborns are something other than living human beings. I am afraid that I am going to have to ask you to PROVE IT. Your faith simply does not carry enough weight to support your claim.


Personhood ensures that any being with personhood will always require ethical treatment from us, period... and that no being with personhood will be subject to a being without personhood.

Somewhat circular don't you think? How about you prove that unborns are something other than living human beings first and then we can persue this rediculous line of thought.


Trying to use the idea of conception, or species membership will almost get us to that point... but it has other nasty side effects, such as the misogynistic transformation of a women into incubators for the state against their will.

Ahhh. Appeal to emotion. I knew you would get around to that one at some point or another. Of course, it doesn't constitute a rational argument because the state is not forcing women to show up at impregnation centers where they are impregnated by the state. When that happens, let me know and I will protest with you.


It also causes us to decouple our treatment of life from the principles which, even if not acknowledged explicitly by certain people, guide our behavior towards living beings. So we have people claiming its the moral thing to do to prolong any life at any cost, regardless of the suffering involved or even the wishes of the person. In short, it causes persons to be subjugated by non-persons who neither require nor deserve equal ethical considerations.

More begging the question. Till you prove that unborns are something other than living human beings, your argument has no meaning.


*And just in case you are going to go for the typical rebuttal here.... yes, a coma patient has a developed personhood, or an unconscious person has a developed personhood etc so we must treat them like persons. Temporary incapacitation of an existing personhood does not negate its existence any more than breaking a leg negates the existence of your legs.

I am afraid that your philosophical views leave a great deal to be desired. Rationality tops the list. It is possible via philosophical reasoning rationally answer the question of what is a person because we are persons and everyone around us are persons. It is possible to critically examinethe prsons we see every day and determine whether a suggested definition of person adequately describes us.

If you look critically at some of the definitions of person that are advanced by the pro choice side of the argument, it is obvious that most can be set aside right away without discussion because they simply do not mesh with our own experience of what being a person is or they are simply not applicable to the question of what it is to be a person.

First, we don't "get to be" persons because we become autonomous, or independent, or even viable. These characteristics can be dismissed out of hand as not being essential characteristics of personhood because we all know someone or of someone who lacks some or all of these characteristics to some degree or another. In fact, we all lack them to some degree or another. You may have to be viable to stay alive, for example but viability doesn't tell us anything at all about what it is that is staying alive and if you are going to argue philosopically, it is imperative that any prerequisite you care to demand must speak to the subject of the discussion.

(continued)

palerider
03-14-2009, 08:31 PM
(continuation)

Nearly all of the most popular definitions of personhood suggested by the pro choice side of the argument break down in principle, it must be clear to any critical thinker that it follows that they will also break down in practice. Failure to admit this disqualifies one as a critical thinker and identifies one as an emotionalist. If we try to draw a line and say "beyond this point we are persons" we find rather quickly that there is no bright line in which we can say after this line we have characteristics X, Y, and Z but before this line we didn't. Unless of course, you want to limit yourself to some very arbitrary and superfical physical characteristics at which time, you enter the realm of the biological sciences and you want to argue philosophy to avoid the superior scientific argument do you not?

In attempting to set a time in which we "aquire" personhood, the pro choice side immediately enters the realm of logical fallacy. You must "beg the question". You must first assume that this aquisition of personhood happens at a time far enough along in the pregnancy so that abortion becomes a rational action and then try to construct an argument that proves whichever time you have arbitrarily set. This is a terribly flawed form of reasoning in either the scientific or philosophical realms. The failure of the application of this rational tells us that we must first try and find the definition of personhood and then determine whether it is a thing that we aquire or not.

We often hear argument for brain or thinking. OK, lets go there. The potenital for reason and rational thought is a matter of kind. We either have it or we don't. Realization of reason and rational thought is always a matter of degree and we all realize it to different degrees and none of us reach the absolute limit of our potential. Agreed?

Working within that framework then, the work of being a "person" is not an issue of degree but of kind. Do you understand the difference between degree and kind? The sort of person you are is a matter of degree while what you are is a matter of kind. It is quite possible for you to be a better or worse person than someone else. You can be more or less ethical, or honest, but you simply can not be more of a person than someone else. To suggest so is nonsense.

The demand for some sort of actualization that the pro choice side argues for is based on the acknowledgement that the potenital for reason and rational thought is already there in each individual regardless of age. The pro choice side attempts to treat this as irrelavent, but if one is attempting to make a rational argument, then it simply must be acknowledged that we are all the same kind of entity as the unborn and that the adult is no more and no less than a grown up unborn. The pro choice side may argue that they are only asking that we all agree on some "reasonable" minimum qualification for personhood, but once again, in principle this demand breaks down.

The first sign of breakdown in principle is obvious on its face. The problem of having to name the degree of potential that must be achieved in order to be a person. Look about you among the various pro choicers. There simply is no agreement even among those on your side. The passion with which you hold your conviction is not a substitute for a rational explanation of why you may choose one point and another pro choicer may choose another. It also fails as reasonable substitute for a rational argument that higher and higher standards for personhood be met, even among post natals.

Then there are those who attempt to avoid the inevetable arguments by engaging the question of realizing potential as a sort of ticket to personhood. That is to say that they argue that we must reach a certain level in order to be considered a person, but once we are there, injury or illness that might bring us below that level will not "un-person" us. In this manner, they attempt to restrict the debate to those who are yet to be born. Again, to a critical thinker, this line of reasoning fails in that it attempts to change degree into kind but doesn't allow kind to be changed back to degree.

This line of thinking ignores what is required to be a person and focuses instead on what is required to "get to be" a person. This is a dead end because even if you conceed that more is required to get to be a person than is required to remain a person then we are necessarily brought back to what is to be required to remain a person after one has achieved personhood. Such arguments would fail to oppose infantacide in a great many cases and would fail to oppose killing of older individuals in just as many cases.

The logic in introducing degree into the definition of person rather than kind is simply flawed. Our rights are founded on the kind of being that we are, not the degree to which we achieve our potential. The extent to which we are different from each other in degree is not the source of our rights. It is nothing more than evidence of differences in our ability to exercise our rights and we all know that there is no requirement to exercise a right in order to have it none the less.

If the philosophical concept of what is a person refers to anything at all, it refers to something that doesn't need to be proven over and over. The essence of the person is something that is inbred. It is not something that we aquire somewhere along the line. Things that are aquired can be lost and may or may not be regained again. The fact that you are a person and can not lose that personhood no matter what may befall you is evidence that it is not an aquisition that you can lose. It is simply what you are.

It simply isn't rational to argue that non persons change into persons. To make such an argument is to argue that we undergo a radical and essential change in our natures during the span of our lives.

The problem with that thinking is that if the change is inevetable from the time we are concieved if given time then the change is not a change in our essential nature. If we initiate the change from within ourselves then it must be in our nature from the beginning and any changes in characteristics like independence, or where we live, or the amount of physical development we have achieved or how much mental capacity we have later in our lives is nothing more than a manifestation of what we were at the beginning of our life.


It doesn't say we are 'conceived' equal either, and they also refer to 'man'.. not zygote, not fetus.

I suggest that you refer to a dictionary/thesarus of the day. You will find that concieve and create are interchangable words and you will also find that the word man as used at the time refered to humanity in general. Word games aren't going to help you out here.


Operative word: person.

Have you ever heard of Black's Legal Dictionary? It is THE legal dictionary used in every superior court in the country including the supreme court and damned near every lower court as well. It is used to settle disputes between parties over legal definitions. Find yourself a copy and turn to page 1152 (depending on the edition) finger down the page and look up the word person. The definition you will find is "a human being". Simple as that. A human being. Now we are back to the onus falling on you to prove that unborns are something other than living human beings.


You send mixed messages here... Sometimes I have the impression that you arent so much concerned for the welfare of the fetus, zygote or embryo beyond the fact that you feel it is a slipper slope because of the wording of our founding documents, or our legal code. But in other cases you argue as you are towing the typical pro-life rhetoric. Can you clarify? Edit: nevermind.. saw other posts

No mixed signals. I am concerned for human rights. Simple as that.


Before I get to this bit, may I suggest to you that you read my posts more carefully, and also realize you might be missing context when addressing my comments to other people. Its getting tiring having to correct so many serial misinterpretations of my comments, as is the case below, and with your initial foray into this thread.

That is what happens when you engage in word games in an attempt to sidestep the truth. If you find that you can't express your argument in clear and concise terms, perhaps you need to reexamine the position the argument is supposed to support.


Quite the contrary, I have been trying to explain to FlaGator his arguments of personal responsibility are irrelevant to the morality of abortion if one believes 'life begins at conception'. What you just labeled as idiotic seems to be more or less his position... that abortion is wrong, in part, because it allows the woman to duck some unwritten duty she has to the universe to live with the consequences of sex (but only if that consequence is pregnancy, puzzlingly enough... she's free to terminate an STD with medical treatment if she chooses).

Again, you highlight the inherent weakness of your argument in attempting to compare an unborn with a venerial disease. A living human being is not killed in the process of treating a venerial disease.

(continued0

palerider
03-14-2009, 08:32 PM
(continuation)


The red herring is not my own, and again, you haven't bothered to fill yourself in on the context. FlaGator seems to want to claim that abortion is the only instance in society where we allow a person to escape the full consequences of irresponsible actions... and for some reason this contributes to the wrongness of the act... killing what he views as a person. The cherry on top for me is that there is enormous precedent in society for letting people escape the full burden of their consequences in many cases (when the imposition of that burden is something we have the power to relieve). This is especially true when the act of irresponsibility is trivially easy and understandable, and when some of the consequences can be profoundly life altering in a disproportionate way.

Sorry guy, a red herring is a red herring whatever context you care to put it in and it simply doesn't constitute a rational argument in support of your position.

palerider
03-14-2009, 08:35 PM
And your zeal to meticulously hunt and manufacture logical fallacies in only my posts, while ignoring the absolutely blatant ones in all the others suggests something personal is going on here... obviously a nerve has been struck somewhere. Take a chill pill, man.

No need to manufacture them where you are concerned, you provide plenty. I am not arguing with others so what they say is irrelavant to me. If they are arguing logical fallacies to me, I will point them out. Further, if you are ever in doubt that a fallacy that I claim is a fallacy, I will be more than happy to thrououghy explain it to you.

palerider
03-14-2009, 08:37 PM
There would be no personhood without the embryo/fetus. Where does this personhood come from? How is it created?

Personhood is a legal term, nothing more, nothing less. Refer to a legal dictionary and you will find that the word person and the word human being are interchangable. The ethereal concept of personhood that the pro choice crowd promotes is a new concept that came about after roe v wade.

palerider
03-14-2009, 08:39 PM
No. Terry Schiavo was an example of one who was still technically alive, human, and once had personhood, but no longer had personhood (after the accident of course).

Sorry guy, but Terry Schiavo was never declared to be a non person. It was determined (via due process I might add) that no reasonable hope for her recovery existed. We have a right to live, not a right to extraordinary measures being taken on our behalf when we are so sick or injured that no reasonable hope for our recovery exists. Terry Schiavo's case had absolutely nothing to do with personhood.

wilbur
03-14-2009, 08:58 PM
(continuation)

Sorry guy, a red herring is a red herring whatever context you care to put it in and it simply doesn't constitute a rational argument in support of your position.

I never posited those ideas as my own. Again, you lack context, come in here like a bull in a china shop, expect to be taken seriously when you don't even bother to bring to bear a proper interpretation of what I say. This is a complete joke.


The claim you are claiming is a red herring is a claim I NEVER MADE... and a claim I actually pointed out as a red herring long before you showed up to bestow us with your gifts of misapplied logical fallacies. Really, what can one do when you don't even bother to try and understand the words being communicated to you? I'm sure you know what fallacy that is....

But hey... at least we agree on something.

Mythic
03-15-2009, 01:22 AM
How on earth does that relate to the topic at hand? I've laid out the a basic case for personhood and that anyone with it deserves ethical treatment. Do try to think about what I say before you make nonsense rebuttals. Rich and poor both have personhood... so what is it specifically in the personhood philosophy that you think would require us to set up a caste system?

I never said the rich and poor had no personhood. Read what I wrote more carefully.
You state that because something is developing what you call "personhood" they have no right to continue developing and anyone can simply choose to deny that right to develop. Imagine if poor people had no right to become rich, and anyone could simply choose to deny their chances at becoming rich. That is the type of logic you are using, but poor is replaced with lack of personhood, and rich is replaced with personhood. I am simply making a comparison.
Strange, you believe that a person who does not show traits of personhood (if they once had it) still have equal rights because they have potential...the potential to gain that personhood back. You deny potential, but you use the argument yourself.

wilbur
03-15-2009, 01:35 AM
You have a very skewed view of eugenics wilbur.
You're seeing the Nazi version - the FORMAL version as the totality of the movement. Eugenics is at it's core the "science" of darwinism applied to the human species.

Actually, its more the application of animal husbandry techniques to the human race. At least as its been practiced in the past.



Singer is advocating just that. He values human life on it's ability to "be productive" as does eugenics. He believes that humanity should be improved by reducing and eliminating undesirable traits and condition - so does eugenics.


When you define it so broadly and benignly, then what pray tell is the problem with it that requires all of our righteous indignation? Technically, any kind of medical treatment that operates at the level of the genes could be called eugenics if you want... but thats not anything similar to the eugenics that underscores the kind of negative things you want to sling onto Singer.

But as such, most of the musings I've seen from Singer on these subjects have been open questions about what our ethics might be like with such technologies... not hardline stances or polemics... and all of a highly speculative nature, seeing as how none of the technology exists that he discusses, and may never exist.

I don't think anyone would hesitate to fix their unborn at the level of the genes who is positive for cystic fibrosis or some other such condition. I sure wouldnt be hesitating. Does that make me an evil eugenicist?

wilbur
03-15-2009, 01:53 AM
I never said the rich and poor had no personhood. Read what I wrote more carefully.
You state that because something is developing what you call "personhood" they have no right to continue developing and anyone can simply choose to deny that right to develop. Imagine if poor people had no right to become rich, and anyone could simply choose to deny their chances at becoming rich. That is the type of logic you are using, but poor is replaced with lack of personhood, and rich is replaced with personhood. I am simply making a comparison.


You are missing the core of the argument again. I think we both probably agree equally that its wrong to deny someone the right to try and get rich. I don't think its wrong to deny some entity (that is not a person) the right to try and get rich. You compared persons to person. We're debating about the nature of the person vs non-persons.

palerider
03-15-2009, 06:14 AM
I never posited those ideas as my own. Again, you lack context, come in here like a bull in a china shop, expect to be taken seriously when you don't even bother to bring to bear a proper interpretation of what I say. This is a complete joke.


The claim you are claiming is a red herring is a claim I NEVER MADE... and a claim I actually pointed out as a red herring long before you showed up to bestow us with your gifts of misapplied logical fallacies. Really, what can one do when you don't even bother to try and understand the words being communicated to you? I'm sure you know what fallacy that is....

But hey... at least we agree on something.

Perhaps we can also agree that you are quite dishonest. I took a moment and tracked the argued red herring back and lo and behold, it does belong to you. Here it is "in context"


What I stated was, that when two people engage in any act that has consequences and they know this before they commit the act, they consent to accept the consequences of that act. Name something in life other than abortion that does not work this way?

This clearly is not a red herring. It is a straightforward assesment that in general, our laws don't allow us to simply escape the consequences of our actions


This is not an argument. There are innumerable situations where we allow leniency to escape the full effects of the consequences of an irresponsible act, in every single walk of life... in our judicial system, in our social interactions... probably even in the military. We allow leniency for first time criminal offenders. People can get to treat their STDs. How is BC even allowable in this sense, since it is simply designed from the ground up to avoid the consequences of sex.

This clearly is a red herring as it does not answer the question, it attempts to divert by suggesting that because sometimes people escape the consequences of their actions that it is the way our legal system is set up and therefore all instances of escaping consequences must be OK. It does not address the facts of abortion at all. You leave the topic of abortion and address "every walk of life", even the military.

So the evidence points to the fact that you did indeed offer up a red herring as if it were a legitimate argument. I don't know why you would get so upset and defensive about this particular one since your whole argument thus far has been one logical fallacy after another and on whole, a red herring isn't any less logical or more rediculous than some of the others you have presented.

palerider
03-15-2009, 06:43 AM
We're debating about the nature of the person vs non-persons.

Thus far, you have simply assumed that unborns are non persons. To date, I have seen nothing approaching proof. You offered up a pseudo philosophical argument as to what personhood was and who has it but your argument was based firmly in utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, as a philosophy, especially a workable political philosophyhas been discredited to the point that it is a bit surprising whenever I hear someone articulate it out loud. Of course, all pro choice arguments are rooted in utilitarianism, but few will actually admit it.

Utilitarianism never was more than a very poor and intellectually lazy attempt at philosophical reasoning. It holds that whatever achieves the best end is therefore just. If violating an individual's rights or human rights in general serve the best purpose, then according to utilitarian though, there is no probelm with it. At its basis, utilitarianism is flawed. For example, a charismatic religious zealot with political power could, via a utilitarian line of thinking justify forcing people to accept and adhere to a particular religion arguing that it would save their eternal souls which is a good thing so therefore any action taken in order to achieve the good is justifiable. Via utilitarian "logic" a society could enslave an entire class of people and justify their continued bondage on the idea that the suffering of the minority (slaves) is not outweighed by the happiness and luxury that the majority (slave holders) gets from the labors of the slaves.

Here is another example of why utilitarian thought fails at its foundations. Suppose a series of horrendous murders is taking place. Truely grusome. The murders are frightening the citizenry and they are demanding that the killer be caught. The murders continue and the public tensions increase to the point that the citizens are near riot. Using utilitarian thinking, it is justifiable in order to prevent the riots that may cause more death than the murderer to arrest, convict and punish an innocent man. In your case, you are perfectly willing to call a whole group of human beings non persons and allow them to be killed without judicial review and without legal consequence in order to satisfy the wants of another group.

The utilitarian line of thought has been discredited at its very foundations as anyone could justify anything so long as they could come up with a story of a good that was being achieved that the masses would buy. Utilitarianism requires no proof of a good, only a theory of a good. You are unable to prove your arguments and in all likelyhood, the idea of proof rarely enters your thought processes because you are engaging in a utilitarian line of thought.

Unfortuantely for you, any arguments in support of abortion in this country that are based on utilitarian thought are doomed to fail. They can't be supported via rational argument or the law. Any attempt to do so will invariably lead to logical fallacy, misinformation, distortiion, and outright lies.

Those on the pro choice side using a utilitarian line of thought profess to be arguing for liberty but are, in effect, arguing against liberty as they promote denying the most basic human rights to an entire class of human beings for entirely selfish reasons. Their reasoning, as you demonstrate, is flawed at its foundations because from the begninning, it begs the question and simply assumes that unborns are not living human beings with absolutely no proof to support the assumption.

wilbur
03-15-2009, 04:00 PM
This clearly is a red herring as it does not answer the question, it attempts to divert by suggesting that because sometimes people escape the consequences of their actions that it is the way our legal system is set up and therefore all instances of escaping consequences must be OK.

And this precisely where you misquoting me. I would have been happy to cordially and calmly correct you had you approached the situation with tact.

I have claimed that it isn't immoral to escape the consequences of an action in many instances, NOWHERE did I say its acceptable in any and all instances.

This was in response to FlaGator's claim that it is ALWAYS wrong to escape the consequences of an action no matter what.

The bits you directly quoted, and claimed are fallacious on my part, were QUESTIONS posed to FlaGator to get him to clarify his position.. they weren't even claims.



So the evidence points to the fact that you did indeed offer up a red herring as if it were a legitimate argument. I don't know why you would get so upset and defensive about this particular one since your whole argument thus far has been one logical fallacy after another and on whole, a red herring isn't any less logical or more rediculous than some of the others you have presented.

Patience wears thin after a while.... especially when accompanied by the lack of effort you continually display to understand the conversation you saw fit to interject in... all the while forcing claims upon me that I never made... and of course all accompanied by a self-righteous smug heir of intellectual superiority.

wilbur
03-15-2009, 04:42 PM
As for utilitarianism...

It is perfectly valid to evaluate philosophies, policies, beliefs and actions on utilitarian grounds... and in fact, we do all evaluate all those things in utilitarian ways, all the time, in practice.... every single day. You, me, everybody.

Where utilitarianism CAN go wrong is if one fails to apply a basic rights tests to propositions. We all know the horrible scenarios that, in theory, could be justified by pure utilitarianism, if used in isolation... that it could be possible to justify enslavement of 49% of the population if it made the other 51% extremely happy. But that is not how its used in practice (at least ideally). Utilitarianism is used once it has been established that a course of action violates no basic rights. It is vital in determining the best courses of action once initial conditions, such as basic rights, have been met.

All philosophies, polices and practices tend to be evaluated by utilitarian justifications (at least partly) once they pass a basic rights test.

palerider
03-15-2009, 06:38 PM
As for utilitarianism...

It is perfectly valid to evaluate philosophies, policies, beliefs and actions on utilitarian grounds... and in fact, we do all evaluate all those things in utilitarian ways, all the time, in practice.... every single day. You, me, everybody.

Where utilitarianism CAN go wrong is if one fails to apply a basic rights tests to propositions. We all know the horrible scenarios that, in theory, could be justified by pure utilitarianism, if used in isolation... that it could be possible to justify enslavement of 49% of the population if it made the other 51% extremely happy. But that is not how its used in practice (at least ideally). Utilitarianism is used once it has been established that a course of action violates no basic rights. It is vital in determining the best courses of action once initial conditions, such as basic rights, have been met.

All philosophies, polices and practices tend to be evaluated by utilitarian justifications (at least partly) once they pass a basic rights test.


SInce abortion is a blatant violation of the most basic human right, your utilitarian philosophical view fails miserably and is just one more proof as to why utilitarianism is a completely discredited line of philosophical thought.

As to all philosophies being evaluated by utilitarian justifications, perhaps some philosophical studies on your part are in order or do feel free to elaborate in order to support your claim. For example, how is the pragmatist philosophy evaluated by utilitarian justifications? Or logical positivism, or stoicism, or scholasticism. For that matter, describe how any particular philosophical shool of thought is evaluated by utilitarian justifications. Feel free to elaborate.

wilbur
03-15-2009, 07:15 PM
SInce abortion is a blatant violation of the most basic human right, your utilitarian philosophical view fails miserably and is just one more proof as to why utilitarianism is a completely discredited line of philosophical thought.

As to all philosophies being evaluated by utilitarian justifications, perhaps some philosophical studies on your part are in order.

I don't think thats true at all. If any selection from a set of choices will present no obvious violation of basic rights.. it is up to us to justify one choice over the other by other means. Utilitarianism fills this role quite frequently. Utilitarianism is alive and well, and in practice every single day.

Anytime one weighs the pros and cons of a policy in terms of the maximum benefit to the wide range of people, they are practicing utilitarianism. Once basic rights tests have been met for a given proposition or set of propositions, it is then upon us to evaluate the pro's and con's of those various propositions, partly or in whole by their effect on the population at large. Sure, sometimes personal greed and selfishness interfere, or other factors need to be weighed, but barring those types of exceptions, utilitarian justifications guide us all the time.

For example... say we have all agreed that there is a percentage range in which the government is free to tax the income of its people... ethically. Setting a tax outside that range would be a violation of our property rights, or other rights. But the optimum tax rate within that range is still undetermined. Utilitarian ethics can come into play in such a scenario... and might compel us to search for the optimum tax rate percentage that will provide the most benefit to the most people (as long as the rate stays within the range). Choices are made like this all the time.

I know you don't agree that abortion and pro-choice ideas about personhood pass basic rights tests... but that will have to be dealt with in the next reply when time permits (since they are getting quite long).

Mythic
03-16-2009, 12:42 AM
I don't think its wrong to deny some entity (that is not a person) the right to try and get rich. You compared persons to person. We're debating about the nature of the person vs non-persons.
So no all human beings are persons? Who is to judge what human being is a person or not? A person is simply a human being. According to our Constitution, every person has the right to life. When mentioned in law, person simply means: "Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings". Never is it defined as a human that has certain developed traits. This entire personhood argument does not work.

palerider
03-16-2009, 05:18 AM
I don't think thats true at all. If any selection from a set of choices will present no obvious violation of basic rights.. it is up to us to justify one choice over the other by other means. Utilitarianism fills this role quite frequently. Utilitarianism is alive and well, and in practice every single day.

Debate isn't about what you think. Debate is about what you can prove and thus far you have proved precious little.

And I never suggested that utilitarianism isn't alive and well. In fact, it is the dominant public philosophy. What I said is that I was surprised that someone actually admitted to being a utilitarian. The choices being made along the utilitarian line of thought, however, invariably violate basic rights. Just take a look around. Abortion, redistribution of wealth, coming rationing of medical care, etc. All gross violations of basic human rights and all utilitarian in nature. Some of the greats have been utilitarians. Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler. You should be proud.


Anytime one weighs the pros and cons of a policy in terms of the maximum benefit to the wide range of people, they are practicing utilitarianism.

No, when one weighs the pros and cons, one is thinking utilitarian. It isn't till one decides that the ends justify the means and one group's human rights are violated in order to satisfy the wants of another that one is practicing utilitarianism. That is the difference between despots and societies of laws.


Once basic rights tests have been met for a given proposition or set of propositions, it is then upon us to evaluate the pro's and con's of those various propositions, partly or in whole by their effect on the population at large. Sure, sometimes personal greed and selfishness interfere, or other factors need to be weighed, but barring those types of exceptions, utilitarian justifications guide us all the time.

You keep mentioning basic rights while at the same time arguing abortion. Are you unable to see the major league disconnect between your thinking and reality? Name a human rights violation today that is more serious than abortion. Roughly 40 million are killed every year. Over a million in this country alone with no judicial review and without legal consequence. Basic rights tests are no more than lip service once utilitarianism goes into practice. The cornerstone of utilitarianism is THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS without regard to whether the end is an actual good or not.


For example... say we have all agreed that there is a percentage range in which the government is free to tax the income of its people... ethically. Setting a tax outside that range would be a violation of our property rights, or other rights. But the optimum tax rate within that range is still undetermined. Utilitarian ethics can come into play in such a scenario... and might compel us to search for the optimum tax rate percentage that will provide the most benefit to the most people (as long as the rate stays within the range). Choices are made like this all the time.

You prove my point again. The tax rate that will provide the most benefits to the most people invariably violates the basic property rights of those who are being taxed to support those who are not. The "good" providing for those who are not taxed is yet to be proven a greater good than earning for oneself. It is an assumption on the part of the utilitarian and requires no proof. Only his opinion that serving those who don't earn is the greater good is necessary even though one has no basic right to the property of another and at that point, the very real rights of those who have earned are disregarded in the name of the theoretical greater good.


I know you don't agree that abortion and pro-choice ideas about personhood pass basic rights tests... but that will have to be dealt with in the next reply when time permits (since they are getting quite long).

Of course they don't and thus far, you have done exactly squat to prove it.

palerider
03-16-2009, 05:24 AM
So no all human beings are persons? Who is to judge what human being is a person or not? A person is simply a human being. According to our Constitution, every person has the right to life. When mentioned in law, person simply means: "Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings". Never is it defined as a human that has certain developed traits. This entire personhood argument does not work.

He ignores the fact that our legal system is based on the rights of the individual. The rights of the individual is an anthema to utilitarian thinking unless of course, it is their individual rights that are in question and then their tune changes dramatically. Utilitarian arguments in favor of abortion in this country are less than worthless because they do not address the facts. They must ignore the fact that the rights of the individual are the basis of our legal system. The ethereal "personhood" argument he speaks of is a product of the pro choice movement after roe. Prior to roe, no such bilge was necessary and no rational individual would try to argue that a member of a society was less than an individual.

wilbur
03-20-2009, 03:59 PM
And I never suggested that utilitarianism isn't alive and well. In fact, it is the dominant public philosophy. What I said is that I was surprised that someone actually admitted to being a utilitarian. The choices being made along the utilitarian line of thought, however, invariably violate basic rights. Just take a look around. Abortion, redistribution of wealth, coming rationing of medical care, etc. All gross violations of basic human rights and all utilitarian in nature. Some of the greats have been utilitarians. Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler. You should be proud.


What you have suggested wrong on a couple levels. First off... reading my post above you seem to have missed the fact that I was implicitly acknowledging the supremacy of basic rights over utilitarian policies. You ignored this bit, and went straight for a Godwin by attempting to label my views as utilitarian... then you associated utilitarianism with a host of genocidal tyrants who most definitely didn't give a rats ass about basic rights. Its hard to see how one could make a bigger mischaracterization of my words.



No, when one weighs the pros and cons, one is thinking utilitarian. It isn't till one decides that the ends justify the means and one group's human rights are violated in order to satisfy the wants of another that one is practicing utilitarianism. That is the difference between despots and societies of laws.

Basic rights tests are no more than lip service once utilitarianism goes into practice. The cornerstone of utilitarianism is THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS without regard to whether the end is an actual good or not.


You will find no ethical theory that has any less problems that utilitarianism... you will find no ethical theory that doest produce puzzling results that defy our moral intuitions in esoteric or extreme situations. No ethical system escapes the problem of determining exactly what 'goodness' is. There is nothing inherently bad or evil about utilitarianism compared to any other ethical philosophy in any of these regards.

But, utilitarianism is much more than an ethical framework which one can examine and then choose to adopt or discard... it's like natural selection... not something to invent and choose to take part in, or not to take part in. Its something in which one is continually immersed. Its simply how reality functions. Its a meta-ethic that even governs the formulation of other ethical systems. For what is the goal of ethics if not to discover what is good and put into practice the achievement of that good? Ethical philosophies live and die by their practical utility and their ability to achieve those aims. THAT is utilitarianism.

Now before, I granted that we can ostensibly consider rights as existing without the need for justification... but really... why are we so committed to the concept of rights? Here you will see why its wrong to equate utilitarianism with Hitler, Pol Pot and the like.

I defy you to articulate why rights are important at all without landing squarely in utilitarian waters (or at the very least.. consequentialist waters). What finally caused man do come up with the concept of human rights in the first place, if not the disastrous amounts of suffering that was systemic to nations or empires which never had them? Basic rights provide the greatest good for the greatest many. There is very little that seems to have produced as much good, or reduced as much suffering as has the concept of basic rights. That human beings thrive (or at least suffer less) when rights are protected seems to be an immutable fact of nature.

Rights themselves are a MEANS to an end.... and they are justified by that end.

palerider
03-21-2009, 06:13 AM
What you have suggested wrong on a couple levels. First off... reading my post above you seem to have missed the fact that I was implicitly acknowledging the supremacy of basic rights over utilitarian policies.

And yet, you support denying an entire class of human beings their most basic rights. It is clear that you, in fact, do not acknowledge the supremacy of basic rights over utilitarian policies.


You ignored this bit, and went straight for a Godwin by attempting to label my views as utilitarian... then you associated utilitarianism with a host of genocidal tyrants who most definitely didn't give a rats ass about basic rights. Its hard to see how one could make a bigger mischaracterization of my words.

I ignore nothing. You, on the other hand, tend to ignore much. You conveniently dodge much of my response to you and flit on to a host of strawmen in an effort to avoid the need to defend your position.

As to pointing out that utilitarianism and tyrants very often walk hand in hand, so what. You point out that the tyrants mentioned don't give a rat's ass about basic rights, but neither do you. You stand in favor of denying an entire class of human beings their most basic human right. It is interesting to note that you are completely incapable of seeing your own disconnect.


You will find no ethical theory that has any less problems that utilitarianism... you will find no ethical theory that doest produce puzzling results that defy our moral intuitions in esoteric or extreme situations. No ethical system escapes the problem of determining exactly what 'goodness' is. There is nothing inherently bad or evil about utilitarianism compared to any other ethical philosophy in any of these regards.

If you want to begin a thread on comparative similarities and differences of various political philosophies, by all means, start one. I will be happy to prove you wrong there. On this thread, however, such a challenge is a straw man, or red herring, take your pick, with the express purpose of avoiding the necessity for you to defend your position. Other philosophies, at this juncture of this discussion are irrelavent as you have made the claim that you can rationally defend your position. In your last post you said:


I know you don't agree that abortion and pro-choice ideas about personhood pass basic rights tests... but that will have to be dealt with in the next reply when time permits (since they are getting quite long).

I see no attempt by you in this post to "deal" with your disregard for the basic rights of an entire class of human beings.


But, utilitarianism is much more than an ethical framework which one can examine and then choose to adopt or discard... it's like natural selection... not something to invent and choose to take part in, or not to take part in. Its something in which one is continually immersed.

I am sure that you believe that. The shallowness of your thinking thus far convinces me of it. You don't seem to grasp that thinking, weighing choices and options is an entirely different thing than acting. There is no problem with weighing options and taking different points of view into consideration. The problem arises when you determine that there is a "good" that you wish to achieve and any means by which you will acieve that arbitrary good is acceptable; even if it means denying an entire class of human beings their most basic human rights.

That being said, once more, this discussion isn't about comparative political philosophies. This discussion is about you defending your position in support of allowing one human being to kill another without judicial review, and without legal consequences for any or no reason. It is becoming painfully clear that you simply are not going to be able to do it. Why not simply admit that you can't rationally defend your postion and save yourself further embarassment?

Its simply how reality functions. Its a meta-ethic that even governs the formulation of other ethical systems. For what is the goal of ethics if not to discover what is good and put into practice the achievement of that good? Ethical philosophies live and die by their practical utility and their ability to achieve those aims. THAT is utilitarianism.


Now before, I granted that we can ostensibly consider rights as existing without the need for justification... but really... why are we so committed to the concept of rights? Here you will see why its wrong to equate utilitarianism with Hitler, Pol Pot and the like.

More shucking and jiving and dodging and weaving. If you want to discuss comparative political philosophies, start a thread. This discussion, however, is about you defending your postion. Can you or can't you?


I defy you to articulate why rights are important at all without landing squarely in utilitarian waters (or at the very least.. consequentialist waters).

I defy you to stick to the topic and rationally defend your position. Can you, or do you admit defeat?

wilbur
03-21-2009, 09:19 AM
I defy you to stick to the topic and rationally defend your position. Can you, or do you admit defeat?

Oh I see... you get to swoop in and accuse me of being like Hitler and Pol Pot.. then when you get taken to task on it... I'm going off topic. Interesting. The digression into discussions of utilitarianism were initiated by you, if you read back.

I already granted the supremacy of rights. No matter how or why we arrive at why they are supreme, we can agree they are. Once we get to that common ground.. it should be apparent to you that your argument is as utilitarian as mine.. in fact, at that point, they are nearly philosophically identical.

The disagreement comes along when we get to the biology. As I work my way back to the posts that I haven't had time for yet, we will see why biology does not support your position in the slightest.

wilbur
03-21-2009, 09:27 AM
So no all human beings are persons?

THANK YOU, for finally comprehending this point. And not everything human is a person or an individual human being. Things like embryos.



Who is to judge what human being is a person or not?

We do.



A person is simply a human being. According to our Constitution, every person has the right to life. When mentioned in law, person simply means: "Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings". Never is it defined as a human that has certain developed traits. This entire personhood argument does not work.

Your misunderstandings all seem to stem from the shifting definitions of you employ of person and human. I've made clear distinctions between these things and argue that they are not the same, but you try to argue with me as if I think they are.

palerider
03-21-2009, 10:01 AM
Oh I see... you get to swoop in and accuse me of being like Hitler and Pol Pot.. then when you get taken to task on it... I'm going off topic. Interesting. The digression into discussions of utilitarianism were initiated by you, if you read back.

I said that utilitarian philosophy invariably ends up in tyranny. If you respect individual rights, then by definition, you can not be utilitarian. Perhaps you are confused about your own political philosophy. As to you "taking me to task" dream on. Thus far, you haven't shown the aptitude necessary to take me to task. At this point, were this a formal debate, you would be congratulating me on the win as you have completely failed to support your position.


I already granted the supremacy of rights. No matter how or why we arrive at why they are supreme, we can agree they are. Once we get to that common ground.. it should be apparent to you that your argument is as utilitarian as mine.. in fact, at that point, they are nearly philosophically identical.

You granted the supremacy of rights and yet, you favor denying the most basic of rights to an entire class of human beings and to date, have utterly failed to put forward any rational argument in support of that position and by doing, put yourself in the same line of thought as all utilitarians who believe that the ends justify the means, whatever those means may be.


The disagreement comes along when we get to the biology. As I work my way back to the posts that I haven't had time for yet, we will see why biology does not support your position in the slightest.

The disagreement comes over the fact that you favor the right of one to not be inconvenienced over the very right of another to live. If you intend to argue with me on the subject of biology, I suggest that you study deeply.

palerider
03-21-2009, 10:09 AM
THANK YOU, for finally comprehending this point. And not everything human is a person or an individual human being. Things like embryos.

According to the law, human being and person are interchangable terms. Of course, do feel free to prove otherwise.


We do.

And we have. Refer to Black's Legal Dictionary for the legal definition of person. You will find that it is "a human being". Now you may proceed to attempt to prove that the offspring of two human beings is at some point, something other than a human being. It was that definition that forced the roe court to make their decision based on an assumption that unborns were something other than human beings. Not that they were not persons, but that they were not human beings. They knew as well as I that to argue that they were human beings but not persons was a losing argument as the term human being and person describe the same thing and are, in fact, interchangable terms.

Of course, as a utilitarian, you are perfectly willing to disregard the fundamental righs of one in favor of the theoretical right of another if it is necessary to achieve your "good".


Your misunderstandings all seem to stem from the shifting definitions of you employ of person and human. I've made clear distinctions between these things and argue that they are not the same, but you try to argue with me as if I think they are.

The only one "shifting" definitions here is you. The fact is that in the eyes of the law human being and person are one in the same. Further, a whole body of legal precedent exists that firmly establishes the personhood of the unborn at any stage of development.

Thus far, you have argued that person and human being are different things, but have offered up exactly squat in the way of proof. Clearly it is your opinion that they are different but your opinion doesn't carry enough weight to be considered credible evidence.

Mythic
03-26-2009, 06:17 PM
THANK YOU, for finally comprehending this point. And not everything human is a person or an individual human being. Things like embryos.
I have understood this point the entire time. The problem is you have no scientific proof of what you claim. A skin cell is not a human. It is part of an already living human, but it is not an actual human being. And embryo is a human being. You cannot take an embryo off of a human and re-grow it like skin cells. The embryo is the human being. There are many things that are human, human clothes, technology, etc. What is important is if something is a human being. Embryos, babies, adults, black people, white people; all are human beings.
You have absolutely no way to prove that an embryo is not a human being. You just continue on with this argument of personhood which makes no sense at all and is simply a way to lessen your guilt.



Your misunderstandings all seem to stem from the shifting definitions of you employ of person and human. I've made clear distinctions between these things and argue that they are not the same, but you try to argue with me as if I think they are.
You believe that a person is a human being that has a functioning brain, feelings, and all of the other things mentioned. Along these lines, someone who is numbed would HAVE to become less of a person because they do not have as many of the qualities you contribute to personhood. Less intelligent people who cannot think as well would be less human. Babies who are still very dependent would be less human. The elderly would become less human as they lose memory and those who become braindead would all be less human because of their lack of this personhood. They are all equally human. You then continue the argument stating that as long as someone had these qualities at least once, they will still be a person if they lose the qualities. That logic makes no sense whatsoever. If I am a millionaire and I lose all my money I am no longer a millionaire. If I have my legs chopped off just because I had them earlier in life does not mean I still have legs.

During the time of slavery and discrimination, people would devalue black people using nearly the exact same arguments you are using right now. They would say that black people are not persons because of their skin color and the fact that they were less educated. By freeing black people the Southern economy would collapse, and it did. Today people argue for the mother's economic condition just as people during the time of slavery argued for the economic survival of the plantation owner. The similarities are immense. Here is a quote from John F. Kennedy's Civil Rights Address:

As I've said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.
Not all human beings have equal talents or abilities. A young fetus does not have a complete brain that allows it to do what you see as personhood. But it still has the right to develop its brain, its ability to become human. Abortion takes away that right.

palerider
03-29-2009, 12:19 PM
Seems wilbur has run away to hide from the facts. He has made claims that he can prove his argument when clearly he can't. I am relatively new here, is that his standard tactic?

FlaGator
03-29-2009, 12:51 PM
Seems wilbur has run away to hide from the facts. He has made claims that he can prove his argument when clearly he can't. I am relatively new here, is that his standard tactic?

For some but Wibur usually sticks it out.