believing in your religion or whether you are non-religious, do you agree with abortion?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I think of myself as injured by the action of another, it is up to me personally to prevent it. To defend myself and my rights. That doesn't make the action "immoral".
If I cannot defend a right personally, then I don't have that right.
Ok ...so if u notice theif enter your kitchen and is ripping off your supper your allowed to clobber him in order to get your supper back.
if your at work though you are not able to defend your nice turkey dinner that the theif is ripping off. therefore you are not allowed to report it because as you claim...."If I cannot defend a right personally, then I don't have that right.[/quote"....therefore the theif will have been successful and will return day after day. If you store the dinner somewhere else the theif will bring his dog and sniff it out.
Man is a social being. We "cannot exist without the help of others" motherhood including pregnancey is a natural role in the social nature of mans existance. Abortion is not only a cop out but a statement of non interest in contribution when....its your turn...destructive of course with destructive ends...nothing constructive is...born out of destructive initiative
I understand your points of contention Nozz...and give them their due.
Good because the main point of my posting was to disagree with your idea that these things are „not up for debate“ as you originally claimed. I think at this stage my point that this claim was entirely false is now well made and accepted.
The point being: Not only are they up for debate, but it is of paramount importance that we do do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
but that you HAVE dismissed it, as evidenced by your support of abortion rights...even though you know, in fact, as many as not have "concern that there might be something human there then we should not abort".
Wrong on two counts.
1) I have dismissed nothing, but considered everything I have available to me and reached a position.
2) The position I have come to has nothing to do with "concern that there might be something there" as the position I have reached has identified a point in development when we are 100% sure nothing is there. As soon as there is such a concern, I no longer support abortion. However up to 20 weeks there literally is no such concern.
So please, if you want to respond to my position, at least get my position correct when you presume to summarise it.... otherwise you are responding to something I have not actually espoused, which is hardly fair. Or honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
The fetus is the developing offspring. It can't be anything but human in species. THAT is why I say it's human.
Yet anyone with any grounding in moral philosophy will tell you that simply basing the allocation of rights and morals on species alone is a weak and untenable position. Especially from one who then contradicts their own position by saying life "begins" at conception, but morning after pills are ok.
Your own position needs to be clarified, and the contradictions ironed out, before you presume to use it against the well established positions of others.
And this philosophical issue you have is a problem even before I start pointing out that with advances in human technology we are reaching a point where reproduction does not need sex cells in order to occur any more. We are very much close to being capable of taking any single cell in your body AT ALL and initiating embryonic development from them. Your position as it stands at THAT point will become even more comical than it already is. Every cell in the body will need rights of it's own because it is a potential human being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Also, the fetus is commonly referred to as a "baby"...
Disappointed that you would return to this bad line of argument. You are talking linguistics now and just because you can point to idiosyncrasies of human speech, does not mean you have made a point about anything at all. Quite the opposite, it points to a serious lameness in your position if you have to play linguistic games in order to imagine you have made a point.
For example, many people proud of their car also refer to it as "their baby". Many people use "my baby" as a pet name for their loving spouse. I know I do too. In either of these cases are we suggesting that the thing actually being described is a baby and needs to be treated as one? No... it is just the way we sometimes use language.
If you take any advice off me at all in this thread it would be to lose this lame appear to linguistics in order to create the illusion of a point. It makes you look a lot worse than you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
a fetus at any point, is THE SAME fetus as it is at any other point...just more or less developed.
This is a bad point on two counts:
1) Look up the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
2) It is actually a false claim as cells die. The feotus, humans, animals in reality are NOT the same object at one point in time as they are in another point in time. There is an illusion of this yes, but it is not true. The cells in your body today, for example, were not there last year and the ones that were there last year are long, long gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
so do many others, "experts" included.
While looking up the no true scotsman fallacy, please look up appeal to authority fallacy at the same time. If we could clear up the fallacies you keep appealing to I think we could greatly improve your rhetoric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
People would take "100% certainty" as just another way of saying "non debateable". Many others agree with you.
When I say 100% I mean 100% of how sure we EVER are about anything in science. In science nothing is ever really proven 100%... ever.
However in this argument/debate we have to simply operate on what we think we know to be true. Otherwise we would just be using fantasy as our basis for our points.
What we know to be true is:
1) Everything to do with a human person is connected to certain activity in the brain. Every test we perform confirms this claim.
2) That activity is produced by certain structures in the brain.
3) We can identify points in development where not only are those activities not present, but the structures that produce them are not even present.
Therefore:
4) Everything we know on the subject tells us that nothing of a "human person" is present in this feotus and nothing we know tells us there is a chance that there is.
If you have new scientific evidence to negate that claim THEN you would have a point here. Until then I guess the best you can do is put your hands over your eyes, ignore it, and hope the point goes away.
Good because the main point of my posting was to disagree with your idea that these things are „not up for debate“ as you originally claimed. I think at this stage my point that this claim was entirely false is now well made and accepted.
The point being: Not only are they up for debate, but it is of paramount importance that we do do so.
Wrong on two counts.
1) I have dismissed nothing, but considered everything I have available to me and reached a position.
2) The position I have come to has nothing to do with "concern that there might be something there" as the position I have reached has identified a point in development when we are 100% sure nothing is there. As soon as there is such a concern, I no longer support abortion. However up to 20 weeks there literally is no such concern.
So please, if you want to respond to my position, at least get my position correct when you presume to summarise it.... otherwise you are responding to something I have not actually espoused, which is hardly fair. Or honest.
Yet anyone with any grounding in moral philosophy will tell you that simply basing the allocation of rights and morals on species alone is a weak and untenable position. Especially from one who then contradicts their own position by saying life "begins" at conception, but morning after pills are ok.
Your own position needs to be clarified, and the contradictions ironed out, before you presume to use it against the well established positions of others.
And this philosophical issue you have is a problem even before I start pointing out that with advances in human technology we are reaching a point where reproduction does not need sex cells in order to occur any more. We are very much close to being capable of taking any single cell in your body AT ALL and initiating embryonic development from them. Your position as it stands at THAT point will become even more comical than it already is. Every cell in the body will need rights of it's own because it is a potential human being.
Disappointed that you would return to this bad line of argument. You are talking linguistics now and just because you can point to idiosyncrasies of human speech, does not mean you have made a point about anything at all. Quite the opposite, it points to a serious lameness in your position if you have to play linguistic games in order to imagine you have made a point.
For example, many people proud of their car also refer to it as "their baby". Many people use "my baby" as a pet name for their loving spouse. I know I do too. In either of these cases are we suggesting that the thing actually being described is a baby and needs to be treated as one? No... it is just the way we sometimes use language.
If you take any advice off me at all in this thread it would be to lose this lame appear to linguistics in order to create the illusion of a point. It makes you look a lot worse than you know.
This is a bad point on two counts:
1) Look up the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
2) It is actually a false claim as cells die. The feotus, humans, animals in reality are NOT the same object at one point in time as they are in another point in time. There is an illusion of this yes, but it is not true. The cells in your body today, for example, were not there last year and the ones that were there last year are long, long gone.
While looking up the no true scotsman fallacy, please look up appeal to authority fallacy at the same time. If we could clear up the fallacies you keep appealing to I think we could greatly improve your rhetoric.
When I say 100% I mean 100% of how sure we EVER are about anything in science. In science nothing is ever really proven 100%... ever.
However in this argument/debate we have to simply operate on what we think we know to be true. Otherwise we would just be using fantasy as our basis for our points.
What we know to be true is:
1) Everything to do with a human person is connected to certain activity in the brain. Every test we perform confirms this claim.
2) That activity is produced by certain structures in the brain.
3) We can identify points in development where not only are those activities not present, but the structures that produce them are not even present.
Therefore:
4) Everything we know on the subject tells us that nothing of a "human person" is present in this feotus and nothing we know tells us there is a chance that there is.
If you have new scientific evidence to negate that claim THEN you would have a point here. Until then I guess the best you can do is put your hands over your eyes, ignore it, and hope the point goes away.
I can see that we are at an impasse. You will not admit, nor did you address, one of the main points of my post---That to reconcile your conclusion about abortion, you MUST see your viewpoint (that you are 100% sure "there is nothing there" before 20 weeks) as NOT debatable...while at the same time claiming it MUST BE debatable.
Your claim that there is "nothing there before 20 weeks" is based on citing "brain activity and supporting brain structures" as the "end all and be all" of defining a human person. To do that, you necessarily MUST (and you obviously have) fully dismiss any viewpoint to the contrary.
But hey, if that's what it takes for you to be able to convince yourself that the "entity" that exists in that womb at 20 weeks, is not the same one that's there at 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, etc., so as to be able to put "YOUR hands over YOUR eyes" and "ignore it, and hope the point goes away", so you can claim innocence when killing him/her... I understand, but still don't agree.
BTW, you do something I've seen many times on this board: Accuse someone citing the concurring conclusions of "experts" to support THEIR contentions with "logical fallacy"...but then turn around and cite the concurring conclusions of "science" (the name you use for your "expert") as something other than an "appeal to authority" to support the "determinations" YOU have come to. THAT is the real "logical fallacy". You need to get hip to that.
One more thing---YOU are the one "playing linguistics games".
I call what is in the womb a "Baby", a "Human Being", a "Person"...because I, like billions of others, view that as what it REALLY IS. If you dispute that it is any of those things at that point, at least is has the potential to become those things...and, in fact, has become those things many billions of times.
Noting that some people nickname their cars or spouses something they are not, could never be, and would not ever ACTUALLY be considered such by anybody, by referring to them as "Their Baby"...or citing that "old sayings" such as "green with envy" are not actual reality...is what's comical, a pathetic argument, and not at all the same as calling a baby, "A Baby". You need to get hip to that.
Ya know...as I wrote this post...I can see it comes down to just one real conclusion relative to this issue between us: You are able to reconcile killing what I and billions of others believe is a baby, while it is in the womb...and I can't. THAT'S the real difference between us about this. And that difference says whatever that says about us.
to reconcile your conclusion about abortion, you MUST see your viewpoint (that you are 100% sure "there is nothing there" before 20 weeks) as NOT debatable...while at the same time claiming it MUST BE debatable.
False again. It is more than debatable if you can find evidence to use to debate it. I am asking you for that evidence, but you are not presenting me with a shred of it, therefore I can not even dismiss your position... because you have not presented me one to dismiss.
The facts as we have them at this time however are ALL in favor of nothing about a human person being present before 20 weeks, and NONE in favour that there is even a MODICUM of a chance of this.
So the choice available to you is to either go with what everything tells us we know to be true and incorporate it into your arguments... or ignore it and pretend otherwise for the sake of preventing anything that will upset your world view from getting in the way. Cover your eyes and pretend you did not read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Your claim that there is "nothing there before 20 weeks" is based on citing "brain activity and supporting brain structures" as the "end all and be all" of defining a human person. To do that, you necessarily MUST (and you obviously have) fully dismiss any viewpoint to the contrary.
False again as I have not been GIVEN any viewpoint to the contrary that is based on anything. I can not dismiss what I have never been given. Ever. It just is not possible. It makes as much sense as trying to drop something you are not holding.
You can make things up and give me no basis if you like, and yes I happily dismiss THAT kind of rhetoric. Making something up and presenting it on its own without any back up or basis means I have to dismiss it.
But I have dismissed no viewpoints to the contrary that came with any basis solely for the reason I have NEVER been given a viewpoint to the contrary with any basis. I can not drop what I am not holding, I can not dismiss what I have not been presented.
Before 20 weeks there not only is none of the prerequisites for conciousness or personality or subjective experience... the prerequisites have not even started to form yet. If you want to pretend there is a chance it could be there anyway then you are welcome to your fantasy. If you want to present a BASIS for this fantasy however, I am all ears. Truly I am. Agog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I, like billions of others
Argumentum ad populum. You are ticking off all the fallacies recently. I am interested in what the truth is, what the good argument are... not the numbers of people who currently you imagine think like you do.
If you have arguments to make I am all ears. If the best you can do is imaging billions of people agreeing with the arguments you have not even presented, then you have offered nothing alas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
at least is has the potential to become those things...
Granted, but as I said before if you say something has the potential to become X, the one thing you are VERY clearly saying is that it IS NOT X.
So the second you start calling it, say, a potential human, you have straight away defined it as not human. If you say it has the potential for consciousness, personality, or subjective experiences, then you straight away define it as NOT having those things now.
Which, as I keep saying, is making my point for me.
Due to the many sidebars and off topic discussions going on in this thread it is now closed
Please use the search function for other threads on abortion if you need an answer to something or want to add to that OP
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
