Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Cars, Fetuses, and the Right to Life

Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:02:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?

"It is simply a series of questions"

No, it's dishonesty.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:04:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:02:28 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?

"It is simply a series of questions"

No, it's dishonesty.

Elaborate.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:17:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:04:56 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:02:28 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?

"It is simply a series of questions"

No, it's dishonesty.

Elaborate.

As long as you believe that people are comprised of more than just a physical body (they have a body AND a consciousness or something that is more than the sum of its parts) then this analogy has no practical purpose in regards to a fetus' right to life. You are already aware that a vehicle, under no circumstances, is conscious.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:20:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?

No, I'd pay more.

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?

No, I'd pay less.

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?

Depends on the third party part.

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?

No.

What was the point of that?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:21:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Seriously, how does that relate to the right to life? I'm usually OK at lateral thinking, and I've came across most analogies regarding it, but I cannot possibly decrypt the point of that exercise.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:22:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?

Depends. Does the difference between the several piece car and complete car price match the price of labor if I were to take it into a shop to be assembled?

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?

No.

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?

Depends on the replacement part. It may be more expensive than the originl.

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?

You are essentially asking "Would you consider an orange that can be converted into a lemon equivalent to a lemon?"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:24:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:21:40 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Seriously, how does that relate to the right to life? I'm usually OK at lateral thinking, and I've came across most analogies regarding it, but I cannot possibly decrypt the point of that exercise.

My money is he's trying to make some point about the value of a the fetus being equivalent to the value of a the potential human.

But I really can only guess.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:25:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:17:05 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:04:56 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:02:28 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?

"It is simply a series of questions"

No, it's dishonesty.

Elaborate.

As long as you believe that people are comprised of more than just a physical body (they have a body AND a consciousness or something that is more than the sum of its parts) then this analogy has no practical purpose in regards to a fetus' right to life. You are already aware that a vehicle, under no circumstances, is conscious.

So... cars put together are the same as people. Whut? I'm still scratching my head at how any of this relates to anything. People shouldn't ask hypothetical questions without elaborating on them.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:26:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:24:03 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:21:40 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Seriously, how does that relate to the right to life? I'm usually OK at lateral thinking, and I've came across most analogies regarding it, but I cannot possibly decrypt the point of that exercise.

My money is he's trying to make some point about the value of a the fetus being equivalent to the value of a the potential human.

But I really can only guess.

That was my guess as well (it usually is the clash point), but I still don't see its relationship. Take the car not built yet. No, it's not worth as much. It can disappear and not be built (like the Spanish building industry did to people looking for holiday homes), you might be less than impressed with the build quality, and most importantly you'd be paying in advance, so you'd expect a better deal.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:28:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:17:05 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:04:56 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:02:28 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?

"It is simply a series of questions"

No, it's dishonesty.

Elaborate.

As long as you believe that people are comprised of more than just a physical body (they have a body AND a consciousness or something that is more than the sum of its parts) then this analogy has no practical purpose in regards to a fetus' right to life. You are already aware that a vehicle, under no circumstances, is conscious.

However, it is functional, and more than as a sum of its parts. Instead, it is functional as a complete machine with a specific purpose.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:31:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:20:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?

No, I'd pay more.

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?

No, I'd pay less.

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?

Depends on the third party part.

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?

No.

What was the point of that?

Well, these answers lead me to believe that there are strict demarcations between something in its deconstructed state, and functional state.

Thus, I would figure that you would give a fetus the right to life. This is because it is different from its deconstructed state, which does not have the right to life (question 1), and equivalent to its constructed state (question 2) given that it's functional without manipulation (question 3) and separate from things like stem cells, which can become them (question 4).
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:35:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:25:07 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

So... cars put together are the same as people. Whut? I'm still scratching my head at how any of this relates to anything. People shouldn't ask hypothetical questions without elaborating on them.

If they did, such hypothetical questions would fail due a lack of honesty, sir.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:02:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What? Not a single refutation? Not even an off-color remark? Surely, I haven't solved the same question that's lingered on this forum since I got here?

Alright.

"Well, Franz, you drive a pretty good point. However, value systems are not based necessarily on definitions alone. Sure, one could say that a fetus is functionally human, but functional in what regard? There is no contribution to society, so how could there be protection from it? Indeed, a fetus has less rights than a born person, as a child has less rights than an adult."

Ah, this is true!

Perhaps we should explore value systems to get a clearer idea behind how a fetus and abortion should be disambiguated.

This introduces the question first and foremost -- is it possible to assign non-dogmatic moral value to something without utility nor consequences?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 2:30:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:02:25 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
What? Not a single refutation? Not even an off-color remark? Surely, I haven't solved the same question that's lingered on this forum since I got here?

Alright.

"Well, Franz, you drive a pretty good point. However, value systems are not based necessarily on definitions alone. Sure, one could say that a fetus is functionally human, but functional in what regard? There is no contribution to society, so how could there be protection from it? Indeed, a fetus has less rights than a born person, as a child has less rights than an adult."

Ah, this is true!

Perhaps we should explore value systems to get a clearer idea behind how a fetus and abortion should be disambiguated.

This introduces the question first and foremost -- is it possible to assign non-dogmatic moral value to something without utility nor consequences?

Value of a person != their perceived contribution to society
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 3:41:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:31:20 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:20:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?

No, I'd pay more.

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?

No, I'd pay less.

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?

Depends on the third party part.

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?

No.

What was the point of that?

Well, these answers lead me to believe that there are strict demarcations between something in its deconstructed state, and functional state.

Thus, I would figure that you would give a fetus the right to life. This is because it is different from its deconstructed state, which does not have the right to life (question 1), and equivalent to its constructed state (question 2) given that it's functional without manipulation (question 3) and separate from things like stem cells, which can become them (question 4).

How does that follow at all? A car that doesn't exist yet is not worth as much as a car that does exist. Thus a fetus isn't worth as much as a developed human being (ignoring how human beings aren't static creations like cars which have an end point). If it was manipulated, it may or may not have the value to life, and if it can become a life, then it isn't worth as much as something that is a life. There's nothing there that makes me think that we should value a fetus' right to life.

Also, analogies don't prove anything. "A fetus is like a snickers bar. It doesn't have rights."
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 4:06:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 3:41:15 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
How does that follow at all? A car that doesn't exist yet is not worth as much as a car that does exist.

And yet, you clearly indicated that you would purchase a car that doesn't exist yet at full price.

Thus a fetus isn't worth as much as a developed human being (ignoring how human beings aren't static creations like cars which have an end point).

I would say that adulthood is a suitable end point, as it is when humans stop developing and begin their general atrophy.

If it was manipulated, it may or may not have the value to life, and if it can become a life, then it isn't worth as much as something that is a life.

Right, your answers suggested exactly that belief.

There's nothing there that makes me think that we should value a fetus' right to life.

But, there is much here that indicates you subscribe to reasoning that would lead to you believe that a fetus has a right to life, all things considered, whether or not you choose to follow that same line of reasoning for humans.

Also, analogies don't prove anything. "A fetus is like a snickers bar. It doesn't have rights."

Well, a fetus isn't like a car, and I made no indication that it was.

My questions weren't metaphorical, they were rhetorical. More precisely, it was a rhetorical syllogism. I'm sorry you didn't figure it out in time enough to doctor your responses to fit your preconceived notions, but you shouldn't be so upset about it.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 4:07:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 2:30:43 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:02:25 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
What? Not a single refutation? Not even an off-color remark? Surely, I haven't solved the same question that's lingered on this forum since I got here?

Alright.

"Well, Franz, you drive a pretty good point. However, value systems are not based necessarily on definitions alone. Sure, one could say that a fetus is functionally human, but functional in what regard? There is no contribution to society, so how could there be protection from it? Indeed, a fetus has less rights than a born person, as a child has less rights than an adult."

Ah, this is true!

Perhaps we should explore value systems to get a clearer idea behind how a fetus and abortion should be disambiguated.

This introduces the question first and foremost -- is it possible to assign non-dogmatic moral value to something without utility nor consequences?

Value of a person != their perceived contribution to society

Then, what is it based on?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 4:27:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 4:07:57 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 2:30:43 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:02:25 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
What? Not a single refutation? Not even an off-color remark? Surely, I haven't solved the same question that's lingered on this forum since I got here?

Alright.

"Well, Franz, you drive a pretty good point. However, value systems are not based necessarily on definitions alone. Sure, one could say that a fetus is functionally human, but functional in what regard? There is no contribution to society, so how could there be protection from it? Indeed, a fetus has less rights than a born person, as a child has less rights than an adult."

Ah, this is true!

Perhaps we should explore value systems to get a clearer idea behind how a fetus and abortion should be disambiguated.

This introduces the question first and foremost -- is it possible to assign non-dogmatic moral value to something without utility nor consequences?

Value of a person != their perceived contribution to society

Then, what is it based on?

A person's value is intrinsic.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 5:03:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 4:27:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/17/2013 4:07:57 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 2:30:43 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:02:25 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
What? Not a single refutation? Not even an off-color remark? Surely, I haven't solved the same question that's lingered on this forum since I got here?

Alright.

"Well, Franz, you drive a pretty good point. However, value systems are not based necessarily on definitions alone. Sure, one could say that a fetus is functionally human, but functional in what regard? There is no contribution to society, so how could there be protection from it? Indeed, a fetus has less rights than a born person, as a child has less rights than an adult."

Ah, this is true!

Perhaps we should explore value systems to get a clearer idea behind how a fetus and abortion should be disambiguated.

This introduces the question first and foremost -- is it possible to assign non-dogmatic moral value to something without utility nor consequences?

Value of a person != their perceived contribution to society

Then, what is it based on?

A person's value is intrinsic.

Oh, clearly you see that this requires further disambiguation. Consider: is the man attempting to kill your family of the same value as your family? Is a member of your family of the same value as a stranger?

The answers to those questions are not necessarily implicit... in a perfect world, I'd personally say that a member of your family could have the same value as a stranger, for example.

The real question is, though, that if there are variable values to each given person, how is that value determined?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 5:08:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:02:28 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

"It is simply a series of questions"

No, it's dishonesty.

You know, you're not going to get anywhere here doing that. Make arguments. Don't call out your perspective of people's character.

Having said that, I do think these questions are irrelevant. Cars are not fetuses. Hypotheticals don't automatically translate over.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 5:16:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 4:06:17 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 3:41:15 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
How does that follow at all? A car that doesn't exist yet is not worth as much as a car that does exist.

And yet, you clearly indicated that you would purchase a car that doesn't exist yet at full price.

I'm sorry, you didn't say that at all, did you?

You literally indicated that a car delivered to you in pieces would cost more than a car delivered to you fully constructed, but which you ordered before it was constructed.

Now, I'd like to understand that. Can you please explain why you believe a disassembled are is worth more than one that is assembled?

Also, you do realize that it's common to order cars online (particularly the pricier ones) prior to production, with no reduction in sales price? I just thought I'd put that out there, since I can no longer guide the question.

And, I'd like to add that really, these questions were supposed to inspire dialogue, not ideological marketing.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 5:17:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 5:08:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:02:28 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

"It is simply a series of questions"

No, it's dishonesty.

You know, you're not going to get anywhere here doing that. Make arguments. Don't call out your perspective of people's character.

Having said that, I do think these questions are irrelevant. Cars are not fetuses. Hypotheticals don't automatically translate over.

Those questions were not hypothetical, and the reasoning behind them does not require equivocation.

I'm sorry, but it appears you even less thought to the question than GKD did.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 5:22:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.
I doubt that...

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?
Obviously the complete car has more value; however, this is completely not analogous.

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?
This appears to be the same as question 1. Obviously the complete car has more value; but again, this is completely not analogous.

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?
Depends on the quality of the 3rd party parts. There are MANY third party parts that are much superior to OEM stock parts. Again, completely not analogous.

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?
Obviously the car has more value than an uncompleted car; however, this is completely not analogous.

So far, only your first 2 sentences talk about fetuses and the right to life; the rest is strictly about cars. Now, if you think that your questions have anything to do with your first 2 sentences, then you need to learn this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 5:29:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 5:17:51 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 5:08:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:02:28 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

"It is simply a series of questions"

No, it's dishonesty.

You know, you're not going to get anywhere here doing that. Make arguments. Don't call out your perspective of people's character.

Having said that, I do think these questions are irrelevant. Cars are not fetuses. Hypotheticals don't automatically translate over.

Those questions were not hypothetical, and the reasoning behind them does not require equivocation.

I'm sorry, but it appears you even less thought to the question than GKD did.

"It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations."

Forgive me for misunderstanding your questions. But I don't think you made any accurate clarifications. The questions seem to, in some way, be related to fetuses. In what way, then, is that? And in what way does that invalidate my assessment?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 5:29:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 5:22:06 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/17/2013 10:57:15 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
This thread is not an opinion regarding a fetus's right to life, per se. It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations.
I doubt that...

Question 1: Would you pay as much for a complete car off of a car lot as you would a car in several pieces?
Obviously the complete car has more value; however, this is completely not analogous.

Analogous to what? Clearly, one values something in its complete state than one values the sum of its parts. That is entirely relevant to the subject, which often includes questions regarding whether an egg, a sperma, a blastocyst, or a stem cell is equivalent to, say, a fetus, for example.

Question 2: Would you pay as much for a car ordered online before production that will be delivered to you fully constructed and usable, as you would that same exact car delivered unconstructed?
This appears to be the same as question 1. Obviously the complete car has more value; but again, this is completely not analogous.

The question is quite different. You see, it inquires about the value of something disassembled that one knows will become something, as opposed to that same something disassembled that one knows will not become something without further recourse.

Question 3: Would you value a third-party part of a vehicle as much as you would a native part of that vehicle?
Depends on the quality of the 3rd party parts. There are MANY third party parts that are much superior to OEM stock parts. Again, completely not analogous.

Indeed, this does suggest that one does not place individual value on distinct portions of something that is equivalent to that same portion as a part of a greater whole. An ear is not a person. An arm is not a person. A brain is not a person. A sum of these things are not people. Some of these things are not people. Personhood is quite distinct, however, this distinction is still not, thus far, distinct from a fetus.

Question 4: Would you consider a go-cart that can be converted into a car equivalent to a car?
Obviously the car has more value than an uncompleted car; however, this is completely not analogous.

I'm not sure what you mean by "analogous," but I can tell you that I've seen the argument more than once that extrapolates a fetus's personhood to also include a stem cell's personhood, which is quite analogous to a go-cart (which is, for all intents and purposes, essentially a car with much less capacity) that can be converted into a full car (much how a stem-cell can be converted into a human precursor and utilized by the human reproductive system -- well, this is at least proven in mice, anyway).

So far, only your first 2 sentences talk about fetuses and the right to life; the rest is strictly about cars.

I didn't realize you were the authority on my arguments. But, assuming that you're not and simply made a mistake, I hope this cleared it up for you.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 5:30:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 5:29:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/17/2013 5:17:51 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 5:08:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/17/2013 11:02:28 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

"It is simply a series of questions"

No, it's dishonesty.

You know, you're not going to get anywhere here doing that. Make arguments. Don't call out your perspective of people's character.

Having said that, I do think these questions are irrelevant. Cars are not fetuses. Hypotheticals don't automatically translate over.

Those questions were not hypothetical, and the reasoning behind them does not require equivocation.

I'm sorry, but it appears you even less thought to the question than GKD did.

"It is simply a series of questions that may help foster ideas regarding whether a fetus should have such considerations."

Forgive me for misunderstanding your questions. But I don't think you made any accurate clarifications. The questions seem to, in some way, be related to fetuses. In what way, then, is that? And in what way does that invalidate my assessment?

Indeed. The post above should suffice...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 8:39:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Seriously? All I'm going to get from you people is "fetuses aren't cars"?

What an intellectual deprivation. I'll be sure to scream dogmatic opinions next time I want a decent conversation.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 2:07:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 8:39:46 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Seriously? All I'm going to get from you people is "fetuses aren't cars"?

What an intellectual deprivation. I'll be sure to scream dogmatic opinions next time I want a decent conversation.

I'm curious as to what you consider analogous to "paying more for a car" when it comes to fetuses. Because how much a car costs depends on the retailer, supply, and demand, not my personal feelings. If a replacement part is higher quality than the car itself, then it has a numeric value higher than if the original part where in the car minus labor.