"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[alwight]

OR, you could believe in Him but do like so many others do:

Distort His word to fit your own selfish interests.

No hardly, I'm waiting for the real god to show up. I think I'm pragmatic and sensible enough not to pitch my very humble self up against any real omnipotent omniscient deity.

Being that the homo movement and abortion movement are one in the same, after all of that time defending buggery Uncle alwight, you must have had an overwhelming desire to go out and promote the murder of some babies.

No, atheists don't really like abortions at all, we eat actual babies not the unborn. :TomO:

 

[xAvarice]

No hardly, I'm waiting for the real god to show up. I think I'm pragmatic and sensible enough not to pitch my very humble self up against any real omnipotent omniscient deity.


No, atheists don't really like abortions at all, we eat actual babies not the unborn. :TomO:

Why stop at babies?

Just for posterity sake... God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent... uhm... omnivorous....

I wish Nazaroo was omniscient, or at the very least semiscience..

 

[Lighthouse]

Because it has no body parts. I find having body parts quite important in my life.

This is so patently ridiculous you should file it with the patent office.

 

[gcthomas]

This is so patently ridiculous you should file it with the patent office.

By 'patently ridiculous' do you mean 'believed by the majority of the population'? If so then we agree. If not, then you should justify the statement.

 

[Lighthouse]

By 'patently ridiculous' do you mean 'believed by the majority of the population'? If so then we agree. If not, then you should justify the statement.

No matter how many people believe it, the idea that it's not a person simply because it has yet to form body parts is patently ridiculous.

 

[gcthomas]

No matter how many people believe it, the idea that it's not a person simply because it has yet to form body parts is patently ridiculous.

That so many sane, thoughtful, intelligent, mature people either agree with the position of appreciate the logic even if they don't hold the view themselves, tells more about your ability to comprehend arguments than it does about me.

You may not agree with it, but what is stopping you from even understanding the argument? The argument is as follows:

• A zygote has no body parts.
  
• One of those parts is the brain
  
• Other absent parts are connections within the brain, peripheral nerves, connections between those nerves and the brain.
  
• I believe (pay attention now - this is the important bit) that an organism with all these parts functioning is worth more than one without that function.
  
• Furthermore, I believe that although animals have the same parts functioning, they are not worth as much as a fully functioning human, because the animals' minds function at a lower level.

There. That wasn't that hard, now, was it?

 

[WizardofOz]

Again:

My point has been made. You being a Libertarian (specifically, a homosexualist) somehow think that you can defeat the abortion movement while allowing other sexual sins (and the movements behind them) to prosper.

One on one, anytime you're ready.

Again:

If you want to debate the topic of the thread, present an argument. I am not a Libertarian nor a homosexualist but lying is your thing so don't let facts stop you.

In your message on my page, you said "As you might recall Aaaaaron, you took my message into the thread, not me.

I'll leave you alone, i.e. I don't want to make you look too foolish in your own thread."

Bring. It. On. Stop posturing and present something resembling substance.

Otherwise, stop spamming the thread, my PMs and my profile page. :loser:

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm sorry, but on this point you couldn't be more wrong.

In common speech, as well as in our mode of thinking, they are practically interchangeable. In this particular setting, we try to be more precise, but it is largely a wasted effort - while we may define them in one way biologically, when we shift to the ethical arena we are prone to using the more common usage.

I feel that you couldn't be more wrong and you've alluded to why above. 'What is a "person"' is a philosophical question. 'What is a human' is a biological question. You're using arbitrary phrases like "common speech" and employ a bandwagon fallacy, "in our mode of thinking" as an excuse not to be precise. Being fast and loose with these terms and not being precise is what has us talking past each other.

We must be precise if we are to find agreement on something as fundamental to a debate as the terms we're using.

I have tried to avoid the philosophical and you're insisting that any and all terms can be philosophical only.

As a biological statement, a human zygote is a human. It is a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo. Therefore, it is a human, biologically speaking.

Philosophically speaking, is a human zygote a person? Everyone is entitled to their purely subjective opinion.

As an illustration, the definition of Human:
Human (noun)

A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...f.&fp=1ed6f335b982a40e&biw=1920&bih=955&ion=1

A human zygote is a person in this context. It is a human as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

What is a human zygote if not what is defined above?

The definition of Person:
Person (noun)
A human being regarded as an individual
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...or.r_qf.&fp=cc383f8fffe1ca24&biw=1920&bih=955

An individual human zygote is an individual human. Is it not? We know it's not a part of the mother. It is therefore an individual.

My definition of what a zygote is plugs in just fine with either you've offered above.

May I make a suggestion?
If your intent is not to employ this form of equivocation, why not choose a neutral term, and we can work from there on establishing a real argument to support it?

I gave an example of such a neutral statement in my last post, and you even agreed to it:
"All human organisms, including zygotes, should be protected by law"

The converse position might be something like this:
"All human organisms capable of thought, personality, sentience and/or viability should be protected by law."

No more "human", "a human", "a human being", "person" etc. And no more semantic games to hide behind for either side.

"Capable" is certainly ambiguous. A zygote is capable, even if not presently. If left alone it is capable of all criteria.

More importantly, by your definition, elective abortion is legal. How would you readjust your converse position to account for your own moral objections and prevent abortion on demand?

 

[WizardofOz]

[*]Other absent parts are connections within the brain, peripheral nerves, connections between those nerves and the brain.

[*]I believe that an organism with all these parts functioning is worth more than one without that function

Why should a human, who does not yet possess the above criteria, be unworthy of legal protection?

 

[mighty_duck]

I feel that you couldn't be more wrong and you've alluded to why above. 'What is a "person"' is a philosophical question. 'What is a human' is a biological question.

Exactly!
And "who should have rights" is an ethical question - which falls in the realm of philosophy. This is where the "quick switch" happens in your argument, when you move from the biological to the ethical.

You're using arbitrary phrases like "common speech" and employ a bandwagon fallacy, "in our mode of thinking" as an excuse not to be precise. Being fast and loose with these terms and not being precise is what has us talking past each other.

Moral thinking is often imprecise. We're not talking about an exact science here. We're talking about value and ethics, which are very subjective, with blurry lines.

A human zygote is a person in this context. It is a human as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

What is a human zygote if not what is defined above?

An individual human zygote is an individual human. Is it not? We know it's not a part of the mother. It is therefore an individual.

My definition of what a zygote is plugs in just fine with either you've offered above.

What I was demonstrating was that "person" and "human" are used interchangeably. In my example, they were both used to define each other.

"Capable" is certainly ambiguous. A zygote is capable, even if not presently. If left alone it is capable of all criteria.

Nice dancing
In the same way that a baby is capable of driving a car, but not presently...

A zygote has the potential to develop the capability. It is not actually capable of any of the above.

Just like a baby has the potential to drive a car, but not the actual capability.

I don't think there is as much ambiguity in my definition as you claim.

More importantly, by your definition, elective abortion is legal. How would you readjust your converse position to account for your own moral objections and prevent abortion on demand?

I have zero problems with the morning after pill (ie the kind that allows fertilization but prevents implantation), stem cell research, or IVF.

As the pregnancy goes on, I find it more and more objectionable. But it is not until around the 20th week that I think the law should step in. There is more to the argument than only personhood.

-----------------------
You ignored my request to frame a pro-life-from-conception argument using neutral terms. Got an ETA? :think:

 

[Yorzhik]

Might makes right by evoking God (and enforcement by government)...writ large. Kettle/pot once again.

Quite right. What I said was poorly termed.

Might does not make right by invoking God because right and wrong are above even God. Even God has to act within the bounds of right and wrong.

Perhaps, if you'd write more comprehensible.........

Point taken.

You're right...they're "counts". (What were you going on about comprehension? hmmmm.....:think

You stated "I'm not rejecting human rights on two counts." If the context of the word "counts" isn't reasons, then your problems with comprehension are bigger than mine. At least when I am told about a problem with what I said I admit it instead of doubling-down like you just did.

non sequitur. Try it again.

You did miss that one. You didn't understand the problem you got yourself into.

That's up to the female in question. (hint: It's none of our biz!)

If a female is murdering someone, then it's the rest of societies business.

When does a baby, before it is born, become a human?

 

[gcthomas]

Why should a human, who does not yet possess the above criteria, be unworthy of legal protection?

To avoid the disagreement on the nuances of the term 'a human', try rephrasing the question as

Why should something which does not possess the above criteria, be unworthy of legal protection?​

and you should see my point of view.

 

[Rusha]

To avoid the disagreement on the nuances of the term 'a human', try rephrasing the question as

Why should something which does not possess the above criteria, be unworthy of legal protection?​

and you should see my point of view.

Because by agreeing to use the term *something*, the pro-abortion advocates are intentionally devaluing the worth of the unborn baby.

Why should those of us who value the lives of innocent, unborn babies agree to use the terminology of those who value their destruction?

 

[gcthomas]

Because by agreeing to use the term *something*, the pro-abortion advocates are intentionally devaluing the worth of the unborn baby.

Why should those of us who value the lives of innocent, unborn babies agree to use the terminology of those who value their destruction?

You are absolutely right - that was the point. The language used makes assumptions about the beliefs of the person writing them, especially the rhetorical aims of both sides. That is why agreement on word definition is important, even if it seems pedantic.

I, too, would value the lives of "innocent, unborn babies", put that way. But I don't see them that way for the reasons given before.

WizOz said "Why should a human, who does not yet possess the above criteria, be unworthy of legal protection?"

I don't believe there exists a human who does not possess the criteria listed, so for me the point is moot. The term 'a human' is loaded with assumptions such that I can't apply it to a zygote. So, the question is not whether I support the 'murder' of 'innocent babies' or 'humans', but whether I consider them worthy of protection in their own rights. Ascribing them to the groups 'humans' or 'innocents' or 'babies' rather begs the question.

We can all agree that the zygote is the object of discussion, so to avoid the loaded terms, the questions should be:

"Does the zygote deserve protection?" given the medical or social issues being discussed.

Zygote has little in the way of emotional effect or implicit assumptions, so is a good word to use. Better than 'something', perhaps, but the effect is to stop the question being loaded so it can be discussed without arguments over the terms.

 

[Rusha]

Zygote has little in the way of emotional effect or implicit assumptions, so is a good word to use. Better than 'something', perhaps, but the effect is to stop the question being loaded so it can be discussed without arguments over the terms.

Because I value the life of unborn babies, I don't wish to use a term that has little emotional effect.

Killing an unborn baby is not like having your tonsils out ... or having a tumor removed ...

Almost every abortion is done because a selfish woman does not want to be inconvenienced. The time to decide one doesn't want children is PRIOR to pregnancy rather than the typical "oh well, if I get pregnant I can just go have the local butcher get rid of it for me".

 

[alwight]

Almost every abortion is done because a selfish woman does not want to be inconvenienced. The time to decide one doesn't want children is PRIOR to pregnancy rather than the typical "oh well, if I get pregnant I can just go have the local butcher get rid of it for me".

Of course the best "family planning" is to prevent a pregnancy occurring in the first place.
However why "selfish"? If a woman genuinely did not intend to be pregnant, but it nevertheless happened anyway, I don't see a greatly different moral problem by taking action after the fact.
I'm not advocating abortion as a form of contraception but why rule it out as being the last chance for reasonable women to choose to fix a mistake and perhaps be a point of no return even if some women are "selfish".

 

[mighty_duck]

Because I value the life of unborn babies, I don't wish to use a term that has little emotional effect.

This is basically conceding the debate.

Without begging the question, you are practically admitting you don't have a case.
----------------------
If, OTOH, you think you have a non fallacious case, why can't it be made using neutral terms (like zygote)?

 

[Rusha]

Of course the best "family planning" is to prevent a pregnancy occurring in the first place.

I agree ...

However why "selfish"? If a woman genuinely did not intend to be pregnant, but it nevertheless happened anyway, I don't see a greatly different moral problem by taking action after the fact.
I'm not advocating abortion as a form of contraception but why rule it out as being the last chance for reasonable women to choose to fix a mistake and perhaps be a point of no return even if some women are "selfish".

Because she is choosing to wipe out the WHOLE life of an innocent unborn baby over a measley nine months of inconvenience.

The impact on the unborn babies life who is being aborted is catastrophic, whereas women can give birth and go on with the rest of their lives regardless of whether or not they decide to be a mother.

 

[Lighthouse]

That so many sane, thoughtful, intelligent, mature people either agree with the position of appreciate the logic even if they don't hold the view themselves, tells more about your ability to comprehend arguments than it does about me.

You may not agree with it, but what is stopping you from even understanding the argument? The argument is as follows:

• A zygote has no body parts.
• One of those parts is the brain
• Other absent parts are connections within the brain, peripheral nerves, connections between those nerves and the brain.
• I believe (pay attention now - this is the important bit) that an organism with all these parts functioning is worth more than one without that function.
• Furthermore, I believe that although animals have the same parts functioning, they are not worth as much as a fully functioning human, because the animals' minds function at a lower level.

There. That wasn't that hard, now, was it?

I understand the logic perfectly fine; that doesn't make it not ridiculous. It's grasping at straws, with no basis in anything solid or provable.

 

[gcthomas]

I understand the logic perfectly fine; that doesn't make it not ridiculous. It's grasping at straws, with no basis in anything solid or provable.

So which part of the argument can you ridicule?