Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Pro Life

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 10:22:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dear Pro life/forced continuation of pregnancy people, this is not a baby.

http://www.google.com.au...

That is all.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 10:59:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think a lot of pro-choice people confuse what a thing is with what stage of development a thing is in. They treat a "zygote" or a "fetus" as if it were a different species other than human. But zygote and fetus are different stages of development that humans go through. That picture looks exactly like a human being looks when it's in that stage of development. You're right that it's not a baby. I'm not a baby either. "Baby" is a stage of development. But it's not the stage of development that makes you what you are, and it's what you are that makes you valuable, not your stage of development.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:04:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 10:59:18 PM, philochristos wrote:
I think a lot of pro-choice people confuse what a thing is with what stage of development a thing is in. They treat a "zygote" or a "fetus" as if it were a different species other than human. But zygote and fetus are different stages of development that humans go through. That picture looks exactly like a human being looks when it's in that stage of development. You're right that it's not a baby. I'm not a baby either. "Baby" is a stage of development. But it's not the stage of development that makes you what you are, and it's what you are that makes you valuable, not your stage of development.

If all Pro life/forced continuation/Hey its what God wants people could all accept that abortion doesn't necessarily kill a baby then we have moved ground.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:20:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All that's necessary to establish the pro-life position is to show that abortion kills a human being. It's irrelevant what stage of development it's in. The word "baby" is used in different senses, and it's not a technical term, so I wouldn't get hung up over that word. I'm the baby in my family. Infants and toddlers are babies. If a pro-life person refers to the unborn as a "baby," and you object to the term, then you're just arguing over a word.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:23:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:20:40 PM, philochristos wrote:
All that's necessary to establish the pro-life position is to show that abortion kills a human being. It's irrelevant what stage of development it's in. The word "baby" is used in different senses, and it's not a technical term, so I wouldn't get hung up over that word. I'm the baby in my family. Infants and toddlers are babies. If a pro-life person refers to the unborn as a "baby," and you object to the term, then you're just arguing over a word.

When you try to push a zygote as a baby, then yes I object, its not just a word, its an image, a falsehood that is being used.

ABORTIONS KILLS BABIES !!!
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:28:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:20:40 PM, philochristos wrote:
All that's necessary to establish the pro-life position is to show that abortion kills a human being.

Nope.

1) Is killing a human being always wrong ? (Most if not all Pro life people have exemptions). If they are allowed to invoke exemptions then so can pro choice.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:29:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:23:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
ABORTIONS KILLS BABIES !!!

What you ought to be objecting to here is the use of emotion to persuade people rather than reason. Calling the unborn a "baby" is kind of llke PETA's effort to change the name of "fish" to "sea kitten." But to really get at the arguments, you have to look, not at what word a person uses to refer to the unborn, but the substance of their argument--what they think the unborn actually is.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:32:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:29:54 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/16/2012 11:23:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
ABORTIONS KILLS BABIES !!!

What you ought to be objecting to here is the use of emotion to persuade people rather than reason. Calling the unborn a "baby" is kind of llke PETA's effort to change the name of "fish" to "sea kitten." But to really get at the arguments, you have to look, not at what word a person uses to refer to the unborn, but the substance of their argument--what they think the unborn actually is.

Sure, but I think its a deliberate tactic on some peoples part. The image of a baby being killed is horrific, so they use it where ever they can, even if it might be mis-leading cause you know.........ABORTIONS KILLS BABIES
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:53:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:32:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Sure, but I think its a deliberate tactic on some peoples part. The image of a baby being killed is horrific, so they use it where ever they can, even if it might be mis-leading cause you know.........ABORTIONS KILLS BABIES

Do you think it's misleading to show images of real aborted fetuses as long as they don't call it a baby?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 11:59:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:53:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/16/2012 11:32:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Sure, but I think its a deliberate tactic on some peoples part. The image of a baby being killed is horrific, so they use it where ever they can, even if it might be mis-leading cause you know.........ABORTIONS KILLS BABIES

Do you think it's misleading to show images of real aborted fetuses as long as they don't call it a baby?

No.

Do you think its mis-leading to imply in anyway that destroying a zygote is killing a baby ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:07:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:59:42 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Do you think its mis-leading to imply in anyway that destroying a zygote is killing a baby ?

I don't know. I understand the thought behind it. The person is essentially trying to convey that the unborn is every bit as valuable as the born, which I agree with. But I can understand how somebody who didn't agree with that point of view would find the statement misleading.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:14:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 11:20:40 PM, philochristos wrote:
All that's necessary to establish the pro-life position is to show that abortion kills a human being. It's irrelevant what stage of development it's in. The word "baby" is used in different senses, and it's not a technical term, so I wouldn't get hung up over that word. I'm the baby in my family. Infants and toddlers are babies. If a pro-life person refers to the unborn as a "baby," and you object to the term, then you're just arguing over a word.

If that's the case than all pro-lifers are doing is perpetuating an ethic that holds all members of a certain group valuable, while excluding those not in the group solely based on group membership, while ignoring other possibly relevant characteristics i.e., ability to feel pain, consciousness, preferences, etc. If a zygote possesses rights just because it's technically part of a set we call "humans" than it would appear morally problematic that animals like dogs, cats, moose, frogs, sharks, zebras, lions, etc. aren't also afforded the same rights.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:14:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 12:07:33 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/16/2012 11:59:42 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Do you think its mis-leading to imply in anyway that destroying a zygote is killing a baby ?

I don't know. I understand the thought behind it. The person is essentially trying to convey that the unborn is every bit as valuable as the born, which I agree with. But I can understand how somebody who didn't agree with that point of view would find the statement misleading.

If you don't know, maybe looking at some more zygotes and babies would help.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:14:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I'm understanding this web page correctly, the zygote stage only lasts a few days and is over before it even implants in the womb. If that's accurate, then probably no abortions take place in the zygote stage.

http://averaorg.adam.com...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:17:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 12:14:40 AM, socialpinko wrote:
If that's the case than all pro-lifers are doing is perpetuating an ethic that holds all members of a certain group valuable, while excluding those not in the group solely based on group membership, while ignoring other possibly relevant characteristics i.e., ability to feel pain, consciousness, preferences, etc.

Yes, that's true. More specifically, pro-lifers hold that as long as you're part of the human family, regardless of your capacities or stage of development, then you are valuable, and your life is worth protecting.

If a zygote possesses rights just because it's technically part of a set we call "humans" than it would appear morally problematic that animals like dogs, cats, moose, frogs, sharks, zebras, lions, etc. aren't also afforded the same rights.

Why? Dogs, cats, etc., aren't human. How does it follow that if humans have a certain value that everything else has that same value?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:23:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 12:17:43 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/17/2012 12:14:40 AM, socialpinko wrote:
If that's the case than all pro-lifers are doing is perpetuating an ethic that holds all members of a certain group valuable, while excluding those not in the group solely based on group membership, while ignoring other possibly relevant characteristics i.e., ability to feel pain, consciousness, preferences, etc.

Yes, that's true. More specifically, pro-lifers hold that as long as you're part of the human family, regardless of your capacities or stage of development, then you are valuable, and your life is worth protecting.

I know, that's the absurd part. What is it in humanity qua humanity that morally requires protection that isn't found in animal species?

If a zygote possesses rights just because it's technically part of a set we call "humans" than it would appear morally problematic that animals like dogs, cats, moose, frogs, sharks, zebras, lions, etc. aren't also afforded the same rights.

Why? Dogs, cats, etc., aren't human. How does it follow that if humans have a certain value that everything else has that same value?

They don't strictly speaking. But if one doesn't want to get into the absurdities of saying that belonging to an abstract set *only* is enough to afford one rights and protections than it would follow. It's like me saying only whites should afford protection because they're white. That's not a justification since it doesn't deal with anything close to what common sense would call morally relevant.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:44:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 12:23:33 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I know, that's the absurd part. What is it in humanity qua humanity that morally requires protection that isn't found in animal species?

I don't think a pro-lifer needs to be able to answer that question since most people, whether they're pro life or not, already recognizes that killing a human is worse than killing a dog. A well-trained dog is more intellectually, physically, and emotionally than a new born baby (especially if the baby is born blind), but hardly anybody would say for that reason that killing the dog is a worse crime than killing the baby.

I think the absurdity is in thinking a thing's capacities are what make it valuable.

They don't strictly speaking. But if one doesn't want to get into the absurdities of saying that belonging to an abstract set *only* is enough to afford one rights and protections than it would follow. It's like me saying only whites should afford protection because they're white. That's not a justification since it doesn't deal with anything close to what common sense would call morally relevant.

I agree. Colour is not morally relevant. But it doesn't follow that because colour is not morally relevant that therefore species is not morally relevant. In fact, even if you think capacities are what is morally relevant, you will not have escaped "belonging to an abstract set" as a basis for ascribing value. For example, if you think "self awareness and moral awareness" are what count, then you'd place value in whatever belong to the abstract set of "things that are self aware and morally aware." The only way to escape placing value in things because of the set they belong to is to either ascribe value arbitrarily or to not ascribe value at all.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:45:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Woops! left out a word.

"A well-trained dog is more intellectually, physically, and emotionally than a new born baby..."

Supposed to be:

"A well-trained dog is more intellectually, physically, and emotionally developed than a new born baby"
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:48:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 12:44:23 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/17/2012 12:23:33 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I know, that's the absurd part. What is it in humanity qua humanity that morally requires protection that isn't found in animal species?

I don't think a pro-lifer needs to be able to answer that question since most people, whether they're pro life or not, already recognizes that killing a human is worse than killing a dog. A well-trained dog is more intellectually, physically, and emotionally than a new born baby (especially if the baby is born blind), but hardly anybody would say for that reason that killing the dog is a worse crime than killing the baby.

That's not really an argument though. If 99% of people hold to an intellectually inconsistent position, it doesn't make it proper in itself.

I think the absurdity is in thinking a thing's capacities are what make it valuable.

...as opposed to thinking being part of an arbitrarily defined "chosen" set determines value?

They don't strictly speaking. But if one doesn't want to get into the absurdities of saying that belonging to an abstract set *only* is enough to afford one rights and protections than it would follow. It's like me saying only whites should afford protection because they're white. That's not a justification since it doesn't deal with anything close to what common sense would call morally relevant.

I agree. Colour is not morally relevant. But it doesn't follow that because colour is not morally relevant that therefore species is not morally relevant. In fact, even if you think capacities are what is morally relevant, you will not have escaped "belonging to an abstract set" as a basis for ascribing value. For example, if you think "self awareness and moral awareness" are what count, then you'd place value in whatever belong to the abstract set of "things that are self aware and morally aware." The only way to escape placing value in things because of the set they belong to is to either ascribe value arbitrarily or to not ascribe value at all.

(a) You're in effect admitting that ascribing moral value to humans as a set is arbitrary, correct?

(b) I'm a moral nihilist so I'm not big into ascribing moral value to any set really. I just think the position that humans qua humans deserve moral recognition whereas nothing else does is indefensible/inconsistent with basic moral suppositions.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:59:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 12:48:30 AM, socialpinko wrote:
That's not really an argument though. If 99% of people hold to an intellectually inconsistent position, it doesn't make it proper in itself.

You don't need an argument when the other person doesn't disagree with you. All you need to do is take your commonly agreed upon premise to its logical conclusion. If the person disputes the premise because they don't like where it's going, then they're just not being honest with you. If I'm in an argument with somebody over the morality of abortion, and they object to my argument on the basis that I haven't proven humans are valuable or something like that, then I know they're either playing games or they're a sociopath. Either way, it's not a serious discussion.

I think the absurdity is in thinking a thing's capacities are what make it valuable.

...as opposed to thinking being part of an arbitrarily defined "chosen" set determines value?

Being human is hardly an arbitrary criteria.

(a) You're in effect admitting that ascribing moral value to humans as a set is arbitrary, correct?

No.

(b) I'm a moral nihilist so I'm not big into ascribing moral value to any set really.

I don't take that point of view seriously. Sorry.

I just think the position that humans qua humans deserve moral recognition whereas nothing else does is indefensible/inconsistent with basic moral suppositions.

My position is not that nothing else has value. My position is that nothing else has the same value as humans. But how do you reconcile "basic moral suppositions" with moral nihilism? Doesn't your nihilism render "basic moral suppositions" either irrelevant or arbitrary?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 1:01:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 12:48:30 AM, socialpinko wrote:


(b) I'm a moral nihilist so I'm not big into ascribing moral value to any set really. I just think the position that humans qua humans deserve moral recognition whereas nothing else does is indefensible/inconsistent with basic moral suppositions.

This brings to mind a stand up act by Carlin I think where he talks about where did this sanctity of life come from ? It comes from us, we the living have very strong self interest in promoting the sanctity of life.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 1:07:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 12:59:06 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/17/2012 12:48:30 AM, socialpinko wrote:
That's not really an argument though. If 99% of people hold to an intellectually inconsistent position, it doesn't make it proper in itself.

You don't need an argument when the other person doesn't disagree with you. All you need to do is take your commonly agreed upon premise to its logical conclusion. If the person disputes the premise because they don't like where it's going, then they're just not being honest with you. If I'm in an argument with somebody over the morality of abortion, and they object to my argument on the basis that I haven't proven humans are valuable or something like that, then I know they're either playing games or they're a sociopath. Either way, it's not a serious discussion.

Except that's not why I object. It's not that I don't like where it's going and use that as a motive to look for flawed premises. It's that you're arguing from a more or less arbitrary definition of what is deserving of value and what is not. Furthermore, I'm not sure why denying moral objectivity qualifies one as a psychopath, especially since I still hold most if not all of the same moral feelings. I just have the sense not to ascribe them to a mystical conception of rights or whathaveyou.

I think the absurdity is in thinking a thing's capacities are what make it valuable.

...as opposed to thinking being part of an arbitrarily defined "chosen" set determines value?

Being human is hardly an arbitrary criteria.

If you say so. No arguments necessary, just this one time.

(a) You're in effect admitting that ascribing moral value to humans as a set is arbitrary, correct?

No.

You said drawing a line between value and valued will more or less be arbitrary, unless we choose to not ascribe value at all.

(b) I'm a moral nihilist so I'm not big into ascribing moral value to any set really.

I don't take that point of view seriously. Sorry.

Oh okay. As long as you don't take it seriously right? Seriously, are you ever going to actually forward an argument?

I just think the position that humans qua humans deserve moral recognition whereas nothing else does is indefensible/inconsistent with basic moral suppositions.

My position is not that nothing else has value. My position is that nothing else has the same value as humans. But how do you reconcile "basic moral suppositions" with moral nihilism? Doesn't your nihilism render "basic moral suppositions" either irrelevant or arbitrary?

Yes. However, in the context of saying that I was arguing within a realist framework i.e., showing how your own position was inconsistent according to the framework which you necessarily operate out of.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 1:29:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Socialpinko, this discussion has gone on for a while, and I don't see how we're going to find a stopping place, so I'm just going to make this my last post. I like talking about this stuff, but not forever.

At 12/17/2012 1:07:53 AM, socialpinko wrote:
It's that you're arguing from a more or less arbitrary definition of what is deserving of value and what is not.

I haven't agreed that being human is an arbitrary criteria. What I said was there's no reason to argue for why humans are more valuable than other animals since hardly anybody disputes it. And people who do dispute it are either playing games (so shouldn't be taken seriously) or they're sociopaths (and can't be reasoned with).

Furthermore, I'm not sure why denying moral objectivity qualifies one as a psychopath, especially since I still hold most if not all of the same moral feelings.

I didn't say that denying moral objectivity qualifies one as a psychopath. I said, "If I'm in an argument with somebody over the morality of abortion, and they object to my argument on the basis that I haven't proven humans are valuable or something like that, then I know they're either playing games or they're a sociopath."

(a) You're in effect admitting that ascribing moral value to humans as a set is arbitrary, correct?

No.

You said drawing a line between value and valued will more or less be arbitrary, unless we choose to not ascribe value at all.

No, I said, "The only way to escape placing value in things because of the set they belong to is to either ascribe value arbitrarily or to not ascribe value at all."

(b) I'm a moral nihilist so I'm not big into ascribing moral value to any set really.

I don't take that point of view seriously. Sorry.

Oh okay. As long as you don't take it seriously right? Seriously, are you ever going to actually forward an argument?

Against moral nihilism? No, not in this thread. But I have made arguments against it elsewhere when I've defended the existence of objective morals.

I just think the position that humans qua humans deserve moral recognition whereas nothing else does is indefensible/inconsistent with basic moral suppositions.

My position is not that nothing else has value. My position is that nothing else has the same value as humans. But how do you reconcile "basic moral suppositions" with moral nihilism? Doesn't your nihilism render "basic moral suppositions" either irrelevant or arbitrary?

Yes. However, in the context of saying that I was arguing within a realist framework i.e., showing how your own position was inconsistent according to the framework which you necessarily operate out of.

You didn't show any inconsistency. You merely asserted, "I just think the position that humans qua humans deserve moral recognition whereas nothing else does is indefensible/inconsistent with basic moral suppositions." To show an inconsistency on my part, you need to show that attributing moral worth to humans above other animals is inconsistent with my basic moral suppositions. Good luck with that!

You seemed to misunderstand a few things I said in my previous posts. Since I plan to not contribute to this thread after this post, I ask that you read what I said a little more carefully before responding. I will read your response.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Dogknox
Posts: 5,085
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 10:56:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 10:59:18 PM, Unexplainable wrote:
I think a lot of pro-choice people confuse what a thing is with what stage of development a thing is in. They treat a "zygote" or a "fetus" as if it were a different species other than human. But zygote and fetus are different stages of development that humans go through. That picture looks exactly like a human being looks when it's in that stage of development. You're right that it's not a baby. I'm not a baby either. "Baby" is a stage of development. But it's not the stage of development that makes you what you are, and it's what you are that makes you valuable, not your stage of development.
Unexplainable Rah rah.. I could not have said it better!

The world is getting older. Spain has a negative population growth, Spain will disappear!!

Cry, cry, cry about all the immigrants entering the country, the direct result of Abortion! We are also very close to a negative growth rate! We need the immigrants to keep the lights on, we are handing the country over to them!

There are millions and millions of men in China that will never marry, there are no woman, same in India; All because of Abortion!

Unexplainable you are a good man!!

Dogknox
Dogknox
Posts: 5,085
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 10:58:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
philochristos

CORRECTION TO THE ABOVE POST....
philochristos wrote it... He is a Good Man!!
I don't know where I got Unexplainable????!

Dogknox
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 11:44:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 10:59:18 PM, philochristos wrote:
I think a lot of pro-choice people confuse what a thing is with what stage of development a thing is in. They treat a "zygote" or a "fetus" as if it were a different species other than human. But zygote and fetus are different stages of development that humans go through. That picture looks exactly like a human being looks when it's in that stage of development. You're right that it's not a baby. I'm not a baby either. "Baby" is a stage of development. But it's not the stage of development that makes you what you are, and it's what you are that makes you valuable, not your stage of development.

This ^^^

Spot on.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 11:47:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 12:07:33 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/16/2012 11:59:42 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Do you think its mis-leading to imply in anyway that destroying a zygote is killing a baby ?

I don't know. I understand the thought behind it. The person is essentially trying to convey that the unborn is every bit as valuable as the born, which I agree with. But I can understand how somebody who didn't agree with that point of view would find the statement misleading.

Exactly! Thanks for beating me to this.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 11:53:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why is this discussion in the "religion" forum anyway?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 12:55:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 11:53:12 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Why is this discussion in the "religion" forum anyway?

Look I could answer that, then you could ask why to that, then why to that, and before you know its your stuck in an infinite regress of why, why, why.

So lets just accept it as a brute fact.

)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 2:09:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 10:22:34 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Dear Pro life/forced continuation of pregnancy people, this is not a baby.

http://www.google.com.au...

That is all.

Life begins at conception; NOT because of what he/she IS but because of what they WILL BE.

If I broke into your home and tried to murder you and your family you would, rightly, use every means to defend yourselves..

And yet we do not afford the unborn the same protection.

Only by the grace of God have I changed my mind about this.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)