Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

60 Abortion Arguments Refuted

elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:11:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are over 100,000 characters of text to post.
Please let me post all of it (15 parts) before adding posts of your own.
Thank you!

Any pro-choice person who ever Debates here is welcome to use this information.

---------------------

60 Abortion Arguments Refuted
On Ending The Overall Abortion Debate
A Public Domain Document

The debate can be won by the pro-choice group. The Internet was scoured to find as many different anti-abortion arguments as possible --be warned, some of them could be called "raw", and not even Religion-based arguments are excluded. The purpose of creating the list was to enable full exposure of all the flaws in those arguments, because all of them are indeed flawed. The result is now available for widespread use.
It is possible that no amount of facts and logic can cause some abortion opponents to change their minds. There is, after all, a particular and perfectly natural foundation for a faulty opinion, a foundation that requires extreme effort to overcome, before a different opinion can be formed. But most people are simply too lazy to bother; they would rather keep their opinions, no matter how invalid, and no matter what the consequences....
In this document that foundation is revealed to be "prejudice", and one of the possible consequences is nothing less than the death of most of the human species. If that isn't enough to encourage abortion opponents --who claim to be "pro-life"-- to introspect their opinions carefully, then nothing will do it, and Society should simply and forever afterward ignore them (like members of the Flat Earth Society are basically ignored).

1. "All life is special. It is unfortunate that we have to kill other things to survive, but killing any other thing at any other time should be avoided." UNPROVED, because we have no reason to think life is actually that special, two different ways.
First, and more speculative, is the "panspermia" hypothesis, which is as yet unproved, but looking more and more possible all the time:
htt.../journalofcosmology.com/PanspermiaHara.pdf
That particular paper describes how the giant dinosaur-killing meteor made an impact at Chixulub (in Mexico) big enough to splash Earthly life-forms to other star systems, as far as twenty light-years away by now. Well, in South Africa is an even bigger and much older meteor crater known as the "Vredevoort Ring"; stars about a thousand light-years away could have received life-forms from Earth by now, as a result of that impact. And this particular life-form is well-equipped to survive the trip:
htt.../en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans
Meanwhile, the Galaxy is roughly three times the age of the Sun, so it is possible that life first arose on some other planet ten billion years ago, and eventually made its way to Earth. We do know that life-forms left traces on Earth almost as soon as the just-formed planet had cooled down enough for the oceans to stop boiling.
htt.....ww.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/madeforlife.shtml
So, either "abiogenesis" can happen in perhaps half a billion years, or life simply immigrated after a long prior development elsewhere, and typically arrives at habitable planets throughout the Galaxy, almost as soon as they become habitable, with fresh meteoric "vehicles" routinely being sent into interstellar space by events such as Chixulub, also happening all across the Galaxy. So, if life is as common as that implies, then, no, it isn't particularly special...perhaps no more special than a natural-arch rock formation.
htt.../en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_arch
Second, the more we study exactly how life works at the molecular level, the more it looks like something that might be called "natural nanotechnology". There is nothing fundamentally mysterious about it! Not even its complexity is mysterious; it is well-known that in an energy-rich environment, water naturally moves uphill (via evaporation and rainfall), and it is also known that complex things can, at random, become more complex:
htt.....ww.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
As a result of such studies, and other studies about such things as "How does the human brain function?", and, assuming our technology keeps advancing,
htt.....ww.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/moores-law-embedded-technology.html
we expect to be in a position to, probably within two decades, build machines that would qualify as "intelligent life-forms" in every ordinary sense of both "intelligent" and "life". They will be able to forage for food and other things:
htt.....ww.economist.com/node/16095401
They will be able to reproduce:
htt.....ww.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1252440/von-Neumann-machine
Also, they will be able to interact with us humans much like we interact with each other:
htt.....ww.ibm.com/innovation/us/watson/index.html
And they will have "common sense":
htt.../articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/10/business/fi-techextra10
If one of them was communicating with you remotely, you won't be able to figure out that it was an artificial intelligence:
htt.....ww.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-06/chatbot-posing-13-year-old-wins-largest-ever-turing-test
Such features of artificial intelligence will come to pass partly because we know how to make those features evolve:
htt.....ww.idi.ntnu.no/~keithd/downloads/newai-short.pdf
Human creativity can be expected to be matched (or perhaps exceeded) by artificial intelligences:
htt.....ww.thinkartificial.org/artificial-creativity/
And we will even be able to ensure that they have Free Will, because, while that is something that requires access to utter randomness (thereby precluding "Determinism"), the Universe conveniently makes utter randomess available at the level of Quantum Mechanics:
htt.....ww.tp.physique.usherbrooke.ca/experiences_fichiers/Bell/references/Aspect_Nature.pdf
So, what exactly is it that makes life --or even intelligent life-- "special"? Not the mere say-so of humans, certainly!
Imagine an artificial intelligence able to construct --even mass-produce-- a small and limited version of itself, yet possessing the ability to acquire parts and "grow", such that the small electronic machine eventually becomes another complete and separate artificial intelligence. This small electronic machine would be very much like an unborn human, except that it is seeking parts "in the wild" instead of obtaining them via a womb/placenta. Let us assume the small machine takes nine months of parts-acquisition to achieve the mental abilities of a newborn human, a couple more years of parts-acquisition to achieve the mental abilities of a human toddler, and perhaps fifteen years after that to become equal to an adult human. That small "growing" electronic machine/life-form is going to be referenced in several parts of the text that follows....
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:18:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
2. "Native American culture mandates that if you kill it, you must eat it. Therefore abortion should be forbidden." BAD LOGIC, because the second sentence does not necessarily follow from the first, which by itself is a variant of the preceding anti-abortion argument, and seems true enough:
htt.....ww.knowledgesutra.com/discuss/tllit-eating-meat-morally-correct.html/p_2#61592
Different cultures have different moral standards, of course, and even for Native Americans, that rule can't really apply all the time, because when someone kills a tree for firewood or lumber, there is no intention of eating it.
Meanwhile, it is well documented that in New Guinea, various tribal cultures practiced cannibalism, and human flesh was known as "long pig" (because it is claimed to taste like pork).
htt.../encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Long%2Bpig
It is also known that certain animals, like cats, will after giving birth normally eat the afterbirth, which happens to be rich in protein and iron.
htt.../cats.blurtit.com/q454287.html
Then there is an uncommon sexual fetish known as "vorarephilia", which is associated with (typically imaginary) cannibalism:
htt.....ww.healthinfo21.com/2010/11/5-paraphilias-andor-sexual-fetishes.html
Logically, there appears to be nothing but cultural mores to prevent living humans from eating aborted humans, in alignment with Native American culture. On the other hand, most modern Americans (and peoples of other nations) follow different cultural rules than the Native Americans, such that there is no generic requirement to eat something just because it was killed. For example, flies and mosquitoes may be edible, and they are often killed by humans, but....
Anyway, because the logic doesn't work, this argument against abortion fails.

3. "There is such a thing as a 'right to life', and unborn humans have it." There are two parts to that argument, of which the first fails due to BAD DATA, and the second fails in part because it requires the first to exist.
The notion of "right to life" is a human construct; it does not exist in Nature, as any observer can easily find plenty of life-forms failing to notice any such thing as a "right to life" when they kill and eat other life-forms.
On the other hand, Nature does offer an origin for the notion of a right to life. It is observed that when two members of the same species fight each other, say for a piece of food, or territory or mates, very often this fight is not carried out "to the death". One will usually concede to the other, and that other allows the loser to leave the scene, alive.
There is Evolutionary value in that, because it quite simply and directly reduces the overall death rate of members of that species, and thereby enhances the long-term survival of that species. Note, however, that when two members of different species fight for territory (because they directly compete for the same resources in that territory), this fight will almost always be fatal for one of them. An observer can see in this paragraph an origin for "prejudice".
Humans, by inventing the notion of a right to life, have simply formalized that Natural prejudice of each species, for itself over other species. It is a very useful formalization, because it helps humans to get along with each other. Humans have invented so many ways of making it easy to kill other things, including each other, that, by simply accepting a formalized prejudice, we can better cooperate to do wonderful things, instead of constantly worrying about whether or not one is about to be literally stabbed in the back.
Carefully note that Nature does not recognize humanity's formalized prejudice for itself, its claim of a right to life. Floods and hurricanes and quakes (and so on) routinely kill thousands of humans every year. The notion of a right to life is a convenient tool that humans find useful, and nothing more than that.
Next, because "right to life" is what it is, formalized prejudice, it also can be "taken too far" --a little prejudice might be a good thing, but too much prejudice is a bad thing (too much of any good thing is always a bad thing).
One result of humans taking right-to-life-for-themselves too far is the current global population explosion. The word "biomass" is now relevant. In general, the total amount of biomass on Planet Earth is relatively constant. Logically, this means that the more biomass that becomes dedicated as human bodies (and as certain other life-forms needed to feed human bodies), the less biomass there can be for all the remaining life-forms on the planet. As a result, many life-forms have already become extinct, and many others are threatened with extinction, because prejudiced humans grabbed --and are still grabbing-- more and more of the world's limited biomass for themselves and their food sources (and for other things like wooden buildings).
htt.....ww.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html
Logically, to the extent that humans think that other life-forms should have some degree of "right to life", that is the extent to which humanity's formalized prejudice for itself needs to be restricted. But, in turn, that implies that not all humans should automatically have a full right to life --or perhaps not have any right to life! Any volunteers?
Besides a few suicides, of course not. Well then, there is the legal system, which can specifically remove "right to life" from certain humans, most frequently whenever someone is given a death penalty. In the USA and various other nations, that legal system has also found reason to deny right-to-life to unborn humans. Sure, there are many who oppose that denial. But to base that denial on the mere claim that unborn humans automatically have a right to life, that denial is logically flawed, based on bad data.

4. "Human life is special." IRRELEVANT, because the Earth is full of organisms as unique in their own way as humans. None are inherently more special than any other. And millions upon millions of species have become extinct over the ages. The Neanderthals may have thought they were special, too, but where are they now? And why do so many "special" humans get killed by purely Natural events every year? It is sheer selfish prejudiced egotism for humans to think they are special, and absolutely nothing more than that.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:20:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
5. "Human life is intrinsically valuable." FALSE, because in actual fact there is no such thing as "intrinsic value". All valuations are associated with "desires" of one sort or another, and different sources of desire lead to different valuations. But an "intrinsic value" is something that would be recognized as such, and equally, by every different source of desire. As an example, a simple microbe might prefer to digest something organic, instead of something inorganic, and so, to the microbe, the organic thing is more valuable. If the inorganic thing had been a diamond, the microbe would still prefer the organic thing. Meanwhile, unliving things like rocks have no desires at all, and most of the Universe appears to consist of unliving things (like stars). So, another reason there are no intrinsic valuations is simply that the Universe started out lifeless after the Big Bang, and therefore was desire-free.
Therefore, just because humans arbitrarily declare that diamonds are valuable, or human life is valuable, for various specific human purposes, that doesn't make it intrinsically true, not in the slightest. It is a statement of pure egotistical prejudice, nothing more. As another example, a hungry man-eating tiger doesn't care one whit what humans think about human life, or what deer think about deer life. Again, intrinsic value is something that should be intrinsically recognizable as such. Well, the only thing that tiger will recognize about a human is "fresh meat value", insignificantly different from a deer, not "life value"....

6. "Each human life is unique." IRRELEVANT, because the uniqueness of perhaps 50% of all human conceptions does not keep them from dying of perfectly Natural causes, before birth.
htt.../ucdavismagazine.ucdavis.edu/issues/su96/Feature/Feature-The_Facts_of_Life.html
While it might then be argued that that fact merely makes the other 50% even more precious, it can equally be argued that it is extremely easy for most sexually active adults to make more conceptions, each one just as unique. One result is, every time some employer says, "There's plenty more where you came from!", the individual uniqueness of even an adult human can easily be totally ignored. Which means that human uniqueness can also be ignored before birth, as happens whenever a woman seeks an abortion.

7. "Raping women into pregnancy, or tricking them into pregnancy, and then running away to continue to 'sow wild oats' far and wide, leaving lots of women with the task of raising offspring that carry the valuable and special and unique genes of the perpetrators, is a reason for said perpetrators to oppose abortion." BAD DATA, because as previously shown, concepts such as "specialness" and "value" and "unique" were examined and found wanting. The present anti-abortion argument might be considered more evidence for why those concepts are inadequate reasons upon which to base an argument --they are based on opinion, not fact. But there is more material to cover here, than just that.
While never seen in formal Abortion Debates, the present argument does exist "in the wild", mostly in pornographic literature. Perhaps some male abortion opponents actually (and very silently!) do agree with it. Certainly it is known that many women have indeed suffered from men who ran away after tricking them into becoming pregnant, and it is also known a significant percentage of men are willing to commit rape if they thought they could get away with it:
htt.....ww.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html
Next, it is also widely known that pregnancy can be one of the consequences of rape. While rape is generally considered to be a crime of violence, that doesn't change the basic fact that it gives the rapist an opportunity to pass genes on to the next generation.
Consider the "Law of the Jungle", which is usually defined as, "Whatever works to promote survival is acceptable." It could also be simplified a bit, into "Might makes right" --provided the definition of "might" is broadened to include such things as "mental might" and "trickery might" and so on, not just/only "physical might".
Meanwhile, there is also a concept known as the "selfish gene":
htt.....ww.edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06_index.html
According to that concept, the only purpose of human life is to pass genes on to future generations, and almost nothing else matters at all (well, survival, from zygote to breeding adult, is kind of important, too).
From the preceding information it may be possible to deduce that, since rape has long been a successful tactic for passing human genes on, there could be an actual gene-based tendency, predilection, or influence, toward committing rape --and also for accepting rape, else there would never have arisen the ancient maxim, "If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."
htt.....ww.scottlondon.com/interviews/eisler.html
Basically, per the Law of the Jungle, whatever works, for selfish genes to survive and to pass themselves on to the next generation, is acceptable to Nature. Well, Evolutionarily speaking, it is known that because sex is pleasurable it increases the chance that sexual activities will occur, and consequently reproduction can likewise have an increased chance of happening.
Logically, as indicated above, it makes sense that the success of rape as a reproductive tactic could be associated with certain genes that increase the chance that rape activities will occur, so that reproduction can likewise have an increased chance of happening. Equally logically, even the trick-her-and-run tactic may have some genetic influences behind it.
Modern human societies reject rape, and frown severely upon the trick-her-and-run tactic. Culprits are punished, but always only after they have at least had a chance to pass those influencing genes onto the next generation. If the human species really wants to eliminate those two reproductive tactics altogether, then the most logical way to do it is to never, ever allow either rape or trickery to be a successful reproductive tactic.
Unfortunately, that would entail two concepts that are socially repugnant, even to people who strongly support legalized abortion. First, mandatory abortions would be required, for every pregnancy preceded by rape or trickery. And second, this sort of thing falls under the general umbrella of "eugenics".
As it happens, rape is already very often an acceptable reason, even to most opponents, for abortions to be done. Trickery might be another acceptable reason (more on this later; there is another side to this issue). And the purpose of this document is to expose the flaws in all anti-abortion arguments, not to actually promote abortion.

8. "Personhood obviously begins at conception because, if you consider the question, 'When did your life begin?', then where would you be if it had been aborted?" BAD DATA, again --that is, this argument fails because it includes a faulty premise about "life", and confuses it with "personhood".
First, there are different types of "life". There is biological life, of course, but one day in the not-distant future there could be machine-life, too. Then there is the phrase "get a life!" which refers to something else altogether. And here is a cartoon presenting yet-another definition:
htt.../abortion.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003914
There are other and similarly-facetious definitions, of course, which need not be mentioned here.
The question "When did your life begin?" brings up the concept of "I", an entity who might offer an answer to that question. So, when does an "I" begin? What exactly is an "I"? Consider these concepts: "body", "mind", "spirit", "ego", "superego", and "id". Some of those items may overlap in meaning, but the average walking human is often claimed to be associated with all those concepts, related to "I".

(very long; continued in nex
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:23:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let us examine some of them more closely. In recent years it was discovered that the average "physical human body" is actually composed of something like 9% human cells and 90% bacterial cells. They mostly co-exist symbiotically, needing each other to survive, as a sort-of overall "society of organisms", or even an "ecosystem".
htt.....ww.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm%3Fid%3Dultimate-social-network-bacteria-protects-health
The human-cell portion of that ecosystem begins to exist at conception; it is certainly a living organism. The womb is a fairly sterile environment, so this part of the overall (future) body grows alone, until birth. After birth, through such agencies as simple exposure to the real-world environment, and certain key things like mother's milk, the next phase begins, of a physical human life. It starts entering into symbiosis with essential bacteria, becoming a full ecosystem of mutually beneficial organisms. After the process completes, the extremely small bacterial cells will outnumber the large human cells by about ten to one.
Abortion opponents may now have a dilemma, even without examining other aspects of a "human life". Did it really begin at conception, if such a crucial-for-its-existence part of it, 90% of its cells, even though none of them are human(!), don't get involved until after birth (and when did that 90% begin to exist, anyhow?)???
Then there is "twinning", which poses an additional problem. The details of how twinning happens were discovered in the 20th Century, and, basically, a few days after conception, a single human organism might split to become identical twins --or even identical triplets.
htt.....ww.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm
Well, since identical twins/triplets simply don't physically exist as individuals until days after conception, exactly when should it be claimed that "life" began for just one of them?
A completely new factor, in the description of "human life", was discovered a couple decades ago. An extremely relevant video documentary about this is presented at intervals on the "Discovery Health Channel", titled, "I Am My Own Twin".
It turns out that when fraternal twins are conceived (two completely separate egg-fertilizations), the resulting organisms don't always stay separate. It is possible for them to merge together, to "jointly as a team" construct a single overall and often fairly ordinary-looking human body. The brain might be constructed by one member of the team; the heart might be constructed by the other member of the team. And so on. This process is called "chimerism", and it is basically just another variation on the theme of a "society of organisms". The relevant fact here is, the merging of the two original organisms occurs several days after conception, much like the formation of identical twins/triplets. When exactly do we say that this chimeric human life began? The two conceptions might have occurred hours apart!
Moving on, let's examine another concept. The human mind develops differently from the body, and it is our minds that have allowed us to become the top predator of this planet, to an extent never equaled by any prior species here. Not only do we consume a vast variety of other animal species, from bugs to whales, we also consume mountains and forests and rivers! For many who support abortion rights, the human mind is what qualifies us as persons; the body is just a "vehicle" for the mind (and your eyes are equivalent to twin windshields of that vehicle, through which you see stuff). The mind is certainly more closely associated than the body, with the concept of "I", since it is the mind that must construct the answer to "When did your life begin?".
Well, when does that "I" begin to exist? This question now presents a dilemma to abortion-rights supporters, since it doesn't seem to have an exact answer, partly because some things are still unknown, about the full definition of what an "I" is. It is claimed that basic brain activity begins in an unborn human at about 6-8 weeks after conception; this activity is associated with low-level stuff like the heartbeat, and little else. Some higher-level brain activities may begin about 22-24 weeks. Or does it really happen that way?
htt.../tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and.html
Well, regardless, the overall type and magnitude of those brain activities are easily exceeded by many ordinary animals. If we were to declare that an unborn human is a person because of that level of brain activity, then animals like frogs and rabbits should be declared to be persons, too. Maybe even certain insects would qualify, such as an adult praying mantis. (Have you ever looked closely into the non-faceted eyes of one? That bug is aware!)
The fact is, a human typically does not begin to exceed most ordinary animals in terms of brain activity until about a year after birth. The "I" grows so smoothly from such a minimal start that nobody knows how to specify what its most relevant "beginning" really is.
Finally, about the "spirit". There are different definitions for that, just as there are different meanings for "life". Here the "soul" definition will be used; this document is not going to shy away from Religious concepts. That's because even those concepts don't lead to valid logical self-consistent arguments against abortion; those concepts are mostly used for nothing more than illogical claims.
Well, here's some actual self-consistent logic, based on at least one actual fact. Anything that can begin to exist as a result of some purely physical process can also be destroyed by some other purely physical process. Meanwhile, souls are supposed to be immortal, immune to physical destruction. Logically, this means it is impossible for a soul to exist as a physical thing, and it cannot begin to exist as a result of some purely physical event, such as a human egg-fertilization/conception. It means that if a soul is to begin to exist, whenever that might be, some sort of non-physical process is required, such as an Act of God.
It is likely that abortion opponents who base their arguments on Religion won't have a problem with that. However, this next thing is rather different. The Law of Cause and Effect is mostly in charge of the day-to-day workings of the physical Universe. Not God.
htt.....ww.miltontimmons.com/ChruchesVsLightningRod.html
Science has discovered that, regardless of whether or not God exists, and regardless of whether or not the Universe was Created, the way the Universe works does not require God to be behind the scenes, consciously manipulating events. Review this this previously presented link:
htt.....ww.tp.physique.usherbrooke.ca/experiences_fichiers/Bell/references/Aspect_Nature.pdf
Because the Law of Cause and Effect exists, God can Rest, letting that Law do all the boring work in the Universe, such as throwing most lighting bolts from one cloudy part of the sky to another cloudy part of the sky, hundreds of times a day on trillions of planets for billions of years. However, note that that discovery does not prevent God from deliberately doing something-or-other to the Universe on occasion; all the discovery really means is that, from God's perspective, the Universe is much like a stage play (Shakespeare was right!), with lots of total randomness built into it to make it interesting (mostly via the Free Wills of intelligent beings), and God could just sit back and enjoy the show, if that was all God wanted to do. (And if God decides to throw some equivalent of a water balloon at the stage, giving some planet a Flood, well, by Religions Definition, God has the power to do that, and Science so far can't say anything about it except "So far that hasn't happened here.)

(very long; continued in next
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:27:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The preceding means that no ordinary human conception requires God to be involved. God might or might not choose to be involved, for example to Cause the Start of Something That Yields a Virgin Birth. However, just because some Religion might claim that God is always involved, for the specific purpose of creating souls at conception, that doesn't mean that Religion is correct --or even has any real idea of what it is talking about!
Thus, because of the Law of Cause and Effect, DNA is entirely in charge of the process of conception, and also for the later growth process of the resulting "zygote", not God. And that fact wasn't known to humans until the 20th Century, well after various Religions had arbitrarily claimed God creates souls at conception, when they also thought God had to be involved to make a conception happen in the first place --but God, of course, knew the real facts, regarding the Law of Cause and Effect, all along.
It is understandable that Religions made that claim about souls, to explain various then-unknown things, such as the physical activity of an unborn human in a womb (which turns out to have the Evolution-based purely instinctive purpose of encouraging bones to strengthen in a reduced-gravity environment; ask any astronaut).
Previously, centuries earlier, Religions had made other claims ("The Earth is at the center of Creation"; "God is directly influencing most day-to-day events") to similarly explain various other unknown things.
However, when Science proves that such claims are wrong, or unnecessary, then Religions need to stop spouting nonsense. All they do is look stupid, and lose devout membership. They were definitely wrong about the Earth and day-to-day events, and because Religions refused to admit it for a long time, they were also proved stupid, and they did indeed lose a lot of devout membership.
Meanwhile, Religions claim that the soul is the source of Free Will for a human, that it is the most important aspect of a person, and is intimately associated with the concept of "I". This is the primary reason why, by claiming that unborn humans have souls, Religions conclude that unborn humans also qualify as persons.
On the other hand, the conclusion has a weakness. What if it can be shown that the idea, of unborn humans having souls, makes no sense? Why should the claim be believed, then? And why should unborn humans be called persons, then?
So let's start with DNA and the Law of Cause and Effect, which are in charge of growth in a womb --what does an unborn human need Free Will for? The claim (and, logically, the conclusion) goes against fact!
Then there is that other fact, previously mentioned, about 50% of conceptions failing to survive until birth --and God most certainly knows that. Furthermore, God has direct access to the DNA, and can "read" the genetic code, and will know exactly which zygotes will die from fatally flawed code. Religions claim God is smart, so why would a smart God make souls for known-to-be-doomed zygotes (what do they need souls for)? A better question might be, why are Religions so stupid as to make claims that are so obviously inconsistent with each other, that God is smart, but makes souls as automatically as a mindless machine, just because human conceptions occur?!? Far more likely is the probability that human preachers invented the claim out of sheer prejudiced egotism.
Next, recall the "twinning" problem. Imagine God creating a soul for a zygote at conception, but a few days later the organism splits into triplets. Since souls are immune to merely physical events, this means only one of the three will have a soul, that God has to "come back" to the scene to create two more souls. On the other hand, God is supposed to be smart and knowledgeable. If God knows in advance that there will be triplets--or even that there might be triplets-- then isn't the smartest thing to do is simply wait for the splitting to happen, before making any of the three souls? Yet this violates the claim that God creates souls at conception! But so what? Religions have been wrong about their claims, before!
And what about those "chimera" humans? They each start with two conceptions, and later two human organisms merge to work together as a single team/organism, in just one overall human body, without death happening to either original organism --so chimera-humans should have two souls, right? Unless Religion is wrong again, and a smart God doesn't always create souls at conception, but waits until a better time.
Finally, think about this: If a body is a vehicle for a soul, well, when building an automobile, even we humans are smart enough to not install a driver before the vehicle is ready to be driven --and God is supposed to be lots smarter than us!
There are still other reasons (to be presented later) why it would be dumb for God to do what Religions illogically claim, regarding making souls at conception (the "vehicle" argument isn't the only one why God might wait the whole time until birth).
In the end, regarding the concept of "I", when good data such as scientific facts are considered, or when actually-self-consistent Religious claims are thoroughly evaluated, perhaps the most appropriate/relevant word is "gestalt". If the living "I", a person, is more than the sum of its parts, then it can't begin to exist until all the crucial parts are together. And that is why this anti-abortion argument fails; just because the human-DNA part begins to exist at conception, it isn't more important than the other parts added later.

9. "Unborn humans are persons, generically." FALSE. For proof, just imagine a flying saucer landing in front of you, and an extraterrestrial nonhuman alien entity emerging and politely asking you for directions to, say the Alpha Centauri star system. You might not know the answer to that question, but would the alien qualify as a person? If so, why? Because whatever generic characteristics that particular nonhuman possesses, that lets you identify it as a person and not as an unusual type of animal, unborn humans don't have those characteristics. Measurably animal-level are the minds they do have!
Regarding those small "growing" electronic machines previously mentioned, the thought-experiment involving them seeks to match their development with the way humans develop. So, even after nine months of parts-acquisitions, these machines would also be merely animal-level in their mental abilities. Not persons, yet. Anyone who has no problem with that, but does have a problem with equating unborn humans to mere animals, is simply exhibiting prejudice.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:30:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
10. "Personhood is an innate characteristic of the human species; therefore unborn humans are persons." FALSE. The statement requires supporting evidence which is what, exactly? The fact that some humans exhibit personhood! This logic may appear circular, but it really does matter what order statements are made. So:
A. Traits of personhood are defined.
B. Some humans are observed to exhibit those traits.
C. It is now claimed that personhood is a species-wide characteristic, on the basis of that evidence. If NO humans exhibited traits of personhood, then humans cannot be claimed to possess that characteristic.
D. All humans must now be declared persons, since that characteristic has been claimed to exist species-wide.
HOWEVER:
A. Traits of serial killers are defined.
B. Some humans are observed to exhibit those traits.
C. It is now claimed that being serial killers is a species-wide characteristic, on the basis of that evidence. If NO humans exhibited traits of serial killers, then humans cannot be claimed to possess that characteristic.
D. All humans must now be declared serial killers, since that characteristic has been claimed to exist species-wide.
ABSURD! In both cases, step C is illogical. And there is no other way to reach step D from step B. The net result is that not all humans can automatically be called serial killers, and not all humans can automatically be called persons.
Finally, is personhood an innate characteristic of mere electronic machinery, even it if is "growing" machinery that we know can one day achieve person-class mentality? Anyone who says "no" to that question, but also says "yes" for the equivalent question about an unborn human (biological machinery), is simply exhibiting prejudice.

11. "An unborn human is a person because there is no way to determine that it is not a person." FALSE. The key to proving it involves focusing on the characteristics that non-humans must possess to qualify as persons. For example, just one of the many characteristics of persons is an ability to identify self from "outside" self. While it is not the best thing to test, for reasons that will be obvious, it is an easy test for any organism equipped with a decently working vision system. Basically, many ordinary animals cannot recognize themselves in a mirror (they think it is some other animal that they see, behind glass). Meanwhile, adults of some highly intelligent animal species, such as the chimpanzee, dolphin, and octopus, are very able to recognize themselves in a mirror. Most humans can also, of course --except that very young humans cannot.
htt.../en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_test
Their brains haven't grown the capacity for self-recognition, even six months after birth. Logically, this means that unborn humans, with even-less-developed brains, don't have that capacity, either. Similarly, for any/all other species-independent characteristics of personhood that can be tested, very young humans fail to pass those tests, and so less-developed unborn humans will obviously fail them, also. And that small "growing" electronic machine will also fail this test after only a year of parts-acquisition, per the conditions of the thought-experiment.

12. "Personhood is associated with the human body, and since unborn humans have human bodies, they are persons." FALSE, the proof beginning by imagining a future scenario in which certain medical technologies, now under development, are perfected. The primary relevant technology is called "regeneration"; they are working on ways to encourage a human body that has lost a limb in an accident to grow a new one.
htt.../phys.org/news187879295.html
So let us imagine a horrible accident in which someone literally loses his head (decapitation), but rescue workers are able to arrive before brain-death occurs. Well, the head is on the floor over here, and the body is on the floor over there. Which part do the rescuers put into a regeneration vat, to save the person? Per the known Scientific Facts, personhood is associated with minds, not bodies, and the mind of a human person is always associated with the brain, which is in the head. Note that this also explains why, for various humans who are on full medical artificial life-support, and have been verified to be "brain dead", the "plug" is allowed to be pulled. In those cases, the persons are dead, even if the bodies survive. Meanwhile, measurably animal-level are the minds that unborn humans have! Likewise, the artificial-intelligence mind of that small "growing" electronic machine is not in the parts of its body that move about and make acquisitions and process that stuff to do such things as generate energy; its mind is in its electronic brain, of course.

13. "Abortion might kill an Einstein." UNBALANCED, since abortion might kill a Hitler. The two possibilities cancel each other out, leaving this argument Neutral, with respect to the Overall Abortion Debate. More, it hints how any other anti-abortion argument based on "human potential" is also flawed.

14. "Human minds are special, so when brain activity begins, that is when personhood begins." PARTLY IRRELEVANT AND PARTLY FALSE. The special-ness of a human mind, such as might be exhibited by the average human walking about, is not something possessed by an unborn human. The amount and type of brain activity it has, even just before birth, is purely animal-level, nothing more. And, how special they might become after birth is a matter of "potential", a flawed concept. This is another reason why that small "growing" electronic machine keeps getting mentioned. Until it has acquired enough electronic brainpower to qualify as a person, hardly any technology-geeks on Earth would hesitate if told they could each have one of those machines, to disassemble for lots of cool parts, thereby "killing" it. Because it was just an animal-level machine. So, once again it is prejudice that gets exhibited whenever someone complains about killing an equally animal-level human, which has biological machinery instead of electronic machinery.

15. "Unborn humans have capacities that ordinary animals lack." FALSE, because this is like saying half-dollar coins can be stuffed into a coin-roll constructed to hold dimes. That smaller coin-roll has a strictly limited capacity, and so do unborn humans. Now, as time passes, the capacities of unborn humans can grow, to indeed exceed the capacities of ordinary animals. This is irrelevant to the Overall Abortion Debate; see above, regarding "human potential" and "human minds". (NOTE: there is a "stronger" version of this anti-abortion argument that will have its faults exposed later.)
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:32:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
16. "Unborn humans are equivalent to ordinary humans who might be asleep or in a coma, because eventually they can wake up and act like persons." FALSE. The lie here is to equate "potential" abilities with "actual" abilities. That is, the average sleeping or comatose human has certain already-existing abilities that simply aren't getting used during sleep/coma. The unborn human utterly lacks those abilities in the first place, and won't have them until it grows enough brain-power to accommodate those abilities. For the unborn, all person-class abilities are merely potential, not actual.
Now consider that in the distant-enough future an average individual person will probably experience death. At that time, then, the person will exhibit the traits of a corpse. Well, if we can claim an unborn human should be treated as a person now because in the future it will exhibit the traits of a person, then why shouldn't all abortion opponents be treated as corpses right now, because in the far-enough future they will all exhibit the traits of corpses? Since there's too many of them to embalm all at once, the simplest thing to do is just round them up and -- only because their own logic declares them to be equivalent of dead -- bury them in mass graves just as they are! Well, let us first kindly give them a chance to recant that idiotic logic, before any such burials occur... Meanwhile, measurably animal-level are the minds that all unborn humans currently have!

17. "Unborn humans are human beings." PROPAGANDA, a distortion and/or mis-use of the language. The word "being" has a number of definitions, one of which relates to "existence". So, in that sense, because an unborn human exists, it would qualify as a "human being". However, likewise so would a radish plant qualify as a "radish being". But since that latter phrase is not normally used in casual conversations, it logically follows that in those conversations, which so frequently include the phrase "human being", the word "being" refers to something other than "existence". The actual relevant definition can be inferred from other phrases that are used from time to time: "intelligent being", "extraterrestrial being", "alien being". The word "being" is simply a synonym for "person". And since a radish plant is not a person, that is why the phrase "radish being" does not get used in ordinary conversations. The propaganda is now obvious; abortion opponents are claiming that an unborn human qualifies as a person, without offering any evidence other than the label "being". Note that because ordinary animals are also nonpersons, we don't use phrases like "rabbit being" in typical conversations, either. And, measurably animal-level are the minds that unborn humans do have! (How often do you encounter the phrase "fetus being"?) Meanwhile, True Artificial Intelligences, when they eventually begin to exist, will qualify as "machine beings", even though their offspring, those small "growing" electronic machines previously mentioned, won't qualify as persons until after many months of acquiring parts. Abortion opponents had better start getting used to the concept of "machine beings"!

18. "Any uncertainty regarding the personhood of an unborn human means that we should err on the side of assuming that it has it." WHAT UNCERTAINTY? Just because abortion opponents try to create uncertainty about personhood, by invoking prejudice, or spouting bad data and propaganda, that doesn't make their anti-abortion arguments valid --not to the slightest degree.

19. "Facts that disqualify unborn humans from personhood also disqualify newborns from personhood, and therefore infanticide should be moral." IRRELEVANT, for at least two reasons. First, it has nothing to do with providing a reason to prohibit the abortion of unborn humans, all of which fail to qualify as persons.
Second, "morals" are decided by cultures, for reasons that those cultures find acceptable. So, in ancient Rome it was perfectly normal/moral for physically deformed newborns to be allowed to die of exposure/neglect. In our current American culture, personhood is a legal definition, and encompasses such things as business corporations, not just humans. That legal system currently grants personhood to newborn humans, in ignorance of the scientific facts of the matter.
That ignorance is probably excusable, since the Laws were written before all the relevant facts were discovered. Now it would certainly be possible to adjust the Law, one way or the other. It could be adjusted to become aligned with the scientific facts, to make infanticide of very young infants generally legal --but extremely few in the nation seek to do that. Or, the Law could be adjusted to include unborn humans in the definition of "person", and certainly very many in the nation seek to do that.
However, it is not the intelligent thing to do, since it outright-denies the scientific facts. Indeed, there are interesting Questions, "How is personhood, which includes intelligent behavior as one of its generic characteristics, being exhibited by abortion opponents who stupidly deny scientific facts?" and "Are they really as equivalent-to-dead as their own logic indicates?"

20. "Abortion is immoral." IRRELEVANT, because morals are arbitrary. Some cultures consider eating pork to be immoral, while others don't. Some say nudity is immoral; others say it is "often seen and seldom noticed". Likewise, some cultures consider abortion to be immoral, while others don't. The unsupported opinions of one group do not deserve to be arbitrarily forced upon other groups, else all groups might end up with something truly ridiculous, perhaps "The middle toe must be removed from each foot". Not to mention, how many abortion opponents will consider it immoral to dismantle one of those small "growing" electronic machines previously mentioned? It may be appropriate to once again use the word "prejudice".

21. "The Biblical Sixth Commandment forbids murder, and thereby also forbids abortion." FALSE --not the first part, but the second. Murder involves the killing of a person, and unborn humans don't qualify as persons. (Meanwhile, it might indeed be a violation of that Commandment, murder, to kill a frightful-looking non-human that was merely walking down the ramp of a just-landed flying saucer.) Therefore, abortion, which kills an unborn human non-being/non-person, is exactly equivalent to killing any other type of ordinary non-being/non-person animal. Any objection based on the human-ness of the unborn is strictly and purely worthless/stupid selfish egotistical prejudice, on the part of the objector. And this time it wasn't even necessary to mention the word "machine"!

22. "Children are a gift from God." GENERALLY FALSE. The physical Universe operates primarily under the Law of Cause and Effect. God is not part of its ordinary day-to-day operation, as proved by the invention of the lightning rod:
htt.....ww.miltontimmons.com/ChruchesVsLightningRod.html
Likewise, children are usually another possible-but-uncertain result of the Law of Cause and Effect (described in more detail later); God is no more necessary than a petri dish, for sperm to fertilize egg.
Now, this is not to say that God never even occasionally Acts to give someone the gift of a child. However, since God isn't an idiot, it is extremely unlikely that anyone being given that direct-from-God gift will be someone who afterward would seek an abortion, and, besides, in a classic story, wasn't the Virgin Mary specifically asked for permission, before she became pregnant? Nevertheless, in the vast majority of pregnancies, God is not involved, simply because God doesn't need to be involved. That's just the way the Universe works (or was Created to work, if you want to put it that way).
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:34:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
23. "Unborn humans are persons because God gives them souls at conception." GOD IS NOT THAT STUPID. Some flaws in that argument have been previously presented in this document; here an expansion can be done, because of additional relevant concepts introduced between there and here.
"What do zygotes with fatally flawed DNA need souls for?" has already been mentioned. Something different is based on psychological studies known as "sensory deprivation experiments":
htt.../findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0003/ai_2699000310/
God knows all about "sensory deprivation", of course, and how it can cause someone to start going insane after only a week. Well, a soul locked into a new zygote is exactly in a sensory-deprivation environment, isolated and lonely, and will be unable to experience any senses for months (the sense organs have to grow, first!).
Religions knew nothing about sensory deprivation experiments when they arbitrarily Pronounced that God creates souls at conception. But since God is supposed to be smart and knowledgeable and Loving, why should anyone think that God is going to inflict that horrible thing, months of sensory deprivation, on new/innocent souls?
The notion of a Loving God directly relates to the Overall Abortion Debate. Compare a woman, fully ensouled, to a just-fertilized ovum. The zygote won't have a soul until God creates one for it. Before God exercises Free Will and creates that soul, is there any reason why God should love the zygote more than, or even as much as, the woman? Since God does not stupidly confuse "potential person" with "actual person", the answer should be obvious.
Next, if that woman becomes pregnant, then God will know the exact probability that that woman might seek an abortion, and may just plain know, due to sheer omniscience. If we assume that God knows the woman will get an abortion, then see the logic:
A. If God gives the zygote a soul, then the abortion will be murder, and the woman can be condemned by God.
B. If God doesn't give the zygote a soul, then the abortion will not be murder, and God has no problem with the woman.
C. Therefore, if a murderous abortion occurs, it occurs partly due God's Choice to create a soul, while knowing an abortion would be done!
Basically, Item A violates the fundamental claim that God is Loving. That is, a Loving God is not going to create a soul for a new zygote, just so the woman can be condemned when she aborts an unwanted pregnancy!
Thus the fundamental inconsistency in Religion-based anti-abortion arguments is revealed. If God is Smart and Omniscient and Loving, then God isn't going to be part of deliberately putting people into situations where they must be condemned.
It is now appropriate to speculate about machines having souls. In a purely secular argument, the topic wouldn't arise; the ability for either biology or machinery to tap into the total randomness of Quantum Mechanics, to allow Free Will to exist, makes souls unnecessary, since the Religious Dogma is that the main purpose of a soul is to provide Free Will in humans, and having a soul is related to the Essence of Personhood.
Can the two notions be reconciled? Perhaps. One of the key things about Quantum Mechanics is that it is full of probabilities, and it happens that there are ways to manipulate at least some of those probabilities.
htt.../physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47856
Suppose that a soul specializes in manipulating the probabilities associated with Quantum Mechanics. In this way a soul could send signals though certain appropriately-tiny natural biological structures in human brain cells, which are sensitive to Quantum Randomness, and thereby influence the overall actions of a human body.
Well, as it happens, in the current quest to develop True Artificial Intelligence, things that we learn about how the human brain works are being copied into electronic hardware.
htt.../en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network
htt.....ww.zdnet.co.uk/news/emerging-tech/2011/08/18/ibm-neuron-chips-mimic-brain-processing-40093720/
Logically, if we specifically include Quantum-Mechanical "taps", to allow access to total randomness, consistent with the purely secular notion of where Free Will could come from, then in theory an actual soul could use those taps in the same way it uses equivalent natural brain-cell structures. There actually wouldn't be a reason why a True Artificial Intelligence couldn't have a genuine God-created soul! The only question now is, "When might it be given one?..."

24. "Abortion is dangerous." EXAGGERATION. Abortion can be very dangerous when performed by an amateur with makeshift tools in a society where it is illegal; abortion is seldom dangerous when performed by a well-educated professional with tools specially designed for the task, in a society where it is legal. Meanwhile, birth is sometimes dangerous, also, in all societies, and may even be more dangerous than abortion.
htt.../jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=248&page=192
Since that fact doesn't stop many many women from carrying pregnancies to term, the fact that abortion is occasionally dangerous doesn't stop some women from seeking to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Nor should it.

25. "Abortion encourages discrimination against handicapped unborn humans." IRRELEVANT. Unborn humans are animal bodies with animal-class minds, as all the scientific evidence indicates, and humans have been killing defective animals for millennia. There is also an issue involving "compassion". Lacking it are the abortion opponents, who basically say, "We want this defective human to be born, just so it can suffer a (possibly short) lifetime of terrible inconvenience." Meanwhile, the compassionate abortion proponents basically say, "No human being should have to learn, after birth and almost before anything else, how much richer life could be, if only he or she had a fully healthy body."

26. "Terms such as 'embryo' and 'fetus' are de-humanizing." IRRELEVANT. This document specifically avoids using those terms as much as possible, and still all anti-abortion arguments fail to withstand close scrutiny. Meanwhile, a white blood cell is exactly as fully human as a just-fertilized ovum, yet nobody mourns when hundreds of white blood cells die after a paper-cut causes minor bleeding. It takes much more than mere "human-ness" for an organism to qualify as a person! Indeed, if you want to associate souls with personhood, you can entirely exclude human-ness altogether. An extraterrestrial alien person can in theory have a soul and be most extremely non-human, after all!
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:37:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
27. "Unborn humans are innocent." FALSE. Consider the crime of "manslaughter". One need not have any intent whatsoever to commit that crime to be declared guilty of it, after the fact (provided that it was indeed a fact). Similarly, an unborn human is guilty of committing assault, three different ways: First, it sucks someone else's blood like a vampire; second, it dumps toxic biowaste products into someone else's blood --worse than a vampire!; and third, it injects addictive drugs into someone else's blood, like the very worst sort of drug pusher. The drugs are "HCG" and "progesterone"; the withdrawal symptoms are known as "postpartum depression".
htt.../en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chorionic_gonadotropin
htt.....ww.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/depression-pregnancy.cfm
It should be noted that the "placenta" is the tool used by the unborn human, to commit those assaults. Abortion is the only known way to force those assaults to end quickly, when unwanted. Yes, there is an alternative to abortion, "forgiveness", just as many more-ordinary assaults are forgiven (legal charges are not pressed). But forgiveness is always optional, not mandatory.
Note that the preceding is another reason why God is not so stupid as to put new/innocent souls into unborn humans at conception; in just a few days a soul would become guilty-by-participation of assault, starting when the zygote has become a "blastocyst" that implants into a womb. God is not so stupid as to put a soul into the situation where Assault becomes part of its Record for Judgment Day, even before being born!
Note that this can also give us a clue regarding when one of those small "growing" electronic machines might be given a soul. Suppose such a machine invaded the house of an abortion opponent and dismantled all the accessible personal computers in that house for parts, so that it could continue its growth process --this document has previously mentioned "acquiring" parts while carefully ignoring "where", because now is the place to do that. The abortion opponent could certainly regard such an event as a special sub-type of assault, "vandalism" (which assaults a person's possessions). If the abortion opponent is non-prejudiced, the assault must be accepted as a necessary price for irrationally believing that an animal-class entity should be considered a person.
Meanwhile, God understands the situation, so if God isn't going to create a soul under conditions that link it to biological assault, then God isn't going to do it for a vandalizing machine, either. In which case, of course, the abortion opponent can destroy the soulless potential machine being, and also stop opposing abortion of equally soulless unborn humans! IF there is no prejudice involved, of course.
Finally, there is another and totally different relevant thing that can now be mentioned. Evolutionary biologists know that there are two major reproductive strategies followed by the majority of sexually-reproducing organisms in nature, called "R strategy" and "K strategy" (those are the extremes; many gradations exist between them).
htt.....ww.bio.miami.edu/tom/courses/bil160/bil160goods/16_rKselection.html
Imagine an alien species as intelligent as humanity, but biologically different in that its normal reproductive event yields a thousand offspring at a time. These are quite small and are released "into the wild", where they will forage for food, and can grow to eventually become persons --except that most of them will die in the process, eaten by other life-forms.
Humans are K-strategists; we normally have very few offspring at a time, and give them lots of nurturing and protection. But intelligent R-strategists will care very little about their offspring. Those small "growing" electronic machines previously described were deliberately introduced in terms of R-strategy reproduction, because they can be mass-manufactured by their True Artificial Intelligence "parents".
As long as two or three biological offspring reach adulthood for each breeding pair of R-strategist adults, no matter how many thousands of their other offspring die, the species can continue to survive. And it should be obvious that the intelligent adults must accept that situation, because anything else is a recipe for an ultra-extreme overpopulation disaster.
The facts about K-strategy reproduction make it completely understandable how humans can object to killing some offspring by abortion. Caring for offspring is built-in! Nevertheless, it is usually very easy even for humans to make more --and to even make more offspring fast enough to end up with an overpopulation problem. Logically, therefore, humanity needs to learn that its natural tendencies to care for offspring can be over-done, and it is that thing, the over-doing of caring for offspring, which must be overcome. Too much of a good thing is always, always a bad thing!

28. "Personhood and right-to-life can be associated with a particular kind of organism, and one of the characteristics of that kind is the ability to actively develop itself the point of qualifying for personhood. From the moment of conception, unborn humans are that kind of entity, and therefore abortion should be forbidden." BAD DATA, because the argument fails to specify, or to be associated with, all the relevant facts. The biggest problem with this argument is that it applies to intelligent R-strategists as well as K-strategists --and most of the offspring of person-class R-strategists must be allowed to die in the wild, to prevent an ultra-extreme overpopulation disaster.
Note this anti-abortion argument also means --if it was valid, of course-- that vast numbers of those small "growing" electronic machines must be allowed to, in essence, dismantle our technological civilization while seeking parts to actively develop themselves to the point of qualifying for personhood.
In simpler terms, this anti-abortion argument fails because it assumes that "Potential must be fulfilled!", and even tries to hide the fact that it is making that assumption, by invoking the prejudice of "right to life". Tsk, tsk!
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:38:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
29. "There is no significant difference between an unborn human just prior to birth, and a newborn human." FALSE. The "modus operandi" by which an unborn human survives, up until the moment the umbilical cord is cut, involves committing the assaults described previously. It purely selfishly takes resources. After birth, its "modus operandi" for survival becomes utterly different. It is unable to take anything other than breaths of air; it can only survive over the long term by accepting gifts. This typically includes the gift of being offered a teat full of milk; a newborn has to be carried to the teat, because it is physically unable to go there by itself.
So, at this point the human is behaving utterly innocently, and this is the logical time for God to give it an equally-innocent soul --because God doesn't have to do things the stupid/ignorant way, as portrayed by Religions that didn't have all the facts (e.g., those concerning sensory deprivation and unborn drug-pushing), when making various Pronouncements about God and soul-creation.

35. "Because it is not permissible to refuse temporary accommodation for a guest, to protect them from physical harm (per, for example, an ice storm), it is not permissible to refuse the temporary accommodation which is a pregnancy." FALSE, because that argument is about protecting persons, and assumes an unborn human qualifies as a person --which it doesn't.

Meanwhile no equivalent to birth was described for those small "growing" electronic machines. One simple way to do something equivalent is, after nine months of acquiring parts, the machine displays a preprogrammed-message, "It is now time to stop foraging for parts that are outright-taken. Completion of this project will henceforth depend upon gifts being provided."
If God was waiting for the machine to achieve a state equivalent to the innocence of a newborn, to give it a soul, that time would then have arrived.
Finally, exactly where along the development process might a member of an intelligent biological species of R-strategists be given a soul by God? Well, at some point the surviving offspring must seek out some adults, in Evolutionary terms originally because there can be more safety in a group, but now primarily in order to learn social skills and other things, such that a culture could be developed, the having of which is another hallmark of persons. It is not unreasonable that they could be given souls at about that group-joining time, no matter what their age might happen to be.

30. "In cultures that subscribe to the idea that souls can 'reincarnate', abortion interferes with the long-term growth of a soul." TEMPORARILY, AT WORST, because souls are immortal. Each of them can afford to wait, for a baby to be born into a family that wants it, to reincarnate. (Keep in mind that in this Religious philosophy, God does not make souls routinely; God would only need to make souls if every soul that wanted to reincarnate had done so, and yet there were more newborns available, awaiting souls.)

31. "Abortion is unethical." FALSE. Ethics, unlike morals, can avoid being arbitrary, and it avoids arbitrariness by having the specific goal of encouraging people to get along with each other --and even, when possible, to get along with various mere animals, also. A horse, for example, is willing to work for the resources we provide it --that interaction between humans and horses is ethical. Meanwhile, unborn humans don't qualify as "people", and their behavior as animals is utterly selfish; they make no effort whatsoever to "get along" with others. They are basically operating only under the Law of the Jungle ("might makes right", and their drug-pushing is intended to cause women to like being pregnant). Therefore pregnant women can ethically, if they choose, in turn apply the Law of the Jungle toward unborn humans, and abort unwanted pregnancies.

32. "Abortion gives a woman bad karma." TEMPORARILY, AT WORST. This anti-abortion argument also is associated with "reincarnation" philosophy. So, logically, if a woman has an abortion in this lifetime, then, afterward, while her soul is waiting to reincarnate --waiting for some specific new baby to be born/available-- bad karma can simply mean that that unborn human might get aborted, thereby frustrating the soul. And if the woman had had several abortions during her lifetime, her soul might be frustrated by several future abortions. Nevertheless, her soul is immortal, and can afford to wait --and wait-- for a baby to be born into a family that wants it, to reincarnate. Remember, "patience is a virtue" in more than one Religious philosophy!

33. "A woman may have the right to decide what happens to her body, but it is not her body that gets aborted." IRRELEVANT, because the body that gets aborted is not a person, like a woman is a person. Only an animal gets aborted. Such removal is equivalent to medically removing any other type of unwanted assaulting animal, such as a guinea worm. It is sheer prejudice to think that the human-ness of an unwanted animal assailant makes a difference.
Not to mention, a cancer is another type of human-celled assailant, and almost no-one tries to prevent it from being medically removed. There is also something called a "hydatidiform mole", which is one of the ways defective DNA and/or Murphy's Law can cause a conception to go wrong.
htt.....ww.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000909.htm
It might even be noted that an unborn human is very similar to a cancer or a hydatidiform mole in certain respects: All three are human-celled growths, the woman's body has no control over the growth of any of them, and all three commit the assaults of taking resources from the woman's body, and dumping toxic biowaste products into her body.

34. "An unborn human is a baby or a child." PROPAGANDA, a distortion and/or mis-use of the language. This particular propaganda is particularly heinous, because it causes a lot of unnecessary emotional suffering whenever a natural miscarriage occurs. The truth is that an unborn human is a "baby under construction" or a "child under construction". It is not equal to the resulting baby or child that appears during a successful birth, as explicitly pointed out with respect to "assault", earlier.
Furthermore, the construction process is very complex, and is subject to Murphy's Law, "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." By ignoring those critical facts, and spewing distortions/propaganda instead of the Truth about unborn humans, abortion opponents cause many women to have false hopes and expectations. That is, abortion opponents say "you have a baby" instead of saying, "you have a baby under construction, which is a complex process that might fail to be completed".
The false hope or false expectation involves the unstated assumption that birth is 100% likely --and its false-ness becomes proved, and hopes and expectations become dashed, when Murphy's Law strikes and natural miscarriages occur. How dare abortion opponents be that cruel and unethical and immoral, and cause that much emotional suffering, just to attempt to reinforce the measurably and ludicrously false notion that unborn humans qualify as persons!
Once again we can mention those small "growing" electronic machines, and the thought-experiment specification that they qualify as "potential beings currently under construction". Murphy's Law will absolutely apply to them, also. Will anyone mourn if one of these happens to die from a short-circuit? Then why should anyone mourn if a human miscarriage occurs? Our K-strategy caring-level begins to look like prejudice is part of it!
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:49:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
36. "Sex causes pregnancy, which forces responsibilities upon the participants." This has to be divided into two parts, of which the first, "Sex causes pregnancy", is FALSE. Sex is neither necessary for pregnancy --see "artificial insemination"-- nor sufficient for pregnancy --fertility clinics exist because of that. Even when all biological systems are "go", sex does not directly cause pregnancy. The immediate result of sex is the possibility (not the certainty) for sperm to encounter an egg. These are living organisms independent from the participants in the sex act. Sex does not force those independent organisms to merge.
htt.../discovermagazine.com/1992/jun/theaggressiveegg55 --what if the egg rejects all its suitors?
Next, if sperm and egg do merge, the result is a "zygote", which is another independent organism. After 4 or 5 days it becomes a "blastocyst" that attempts to implant in a womb. Because it is an independent organism, the sex act does not force it to implant (and sometimes its attempt fails, anyway). If it succeeds, that is when it begins to be guilty of committing assault (smaller than mosquito-level is this assault; time is required for its assault to grow to vampire-level --and we still swat mosquitoes and other small bloodsuckers almost automatically).
As a result of two stages of "disconnect" via different organisms acting independently, between the sex act and pregnancy, there are no particular responsibilities forced upon the participants, if a pregnancy begins. They can deal with it however they choose.

37. "The primary purpose of sex is reproduction, so, whenever people have sex and pregnancy results, abortion must be prohibited." FALSE, because, for humans, the primary purpose of sex is most definitely not reproduction. The simplest proof involves the fact that while females of most other species tend to engage in sex only when they are fertile, human females can indulge in sex almost any time. Humanity would not have Evolved that significant distinction, from other species, if it wasn't important. So, for humans, the primary purpose of sex is actually something known as "pair bonding".
htt.....ww.helium.com/items/2338439-sex-is-for-bonding-sexuality-and-pair-bonding-why-sex-is-not-for-making-babies-sex-is-for-fun
Basically, human infants are so helpless, compared to other newborns, that caring for one severely handicaps the mother. If she can attract long-term assistance, then the chances of survival, for both herself and her child, increase greatly. And it is well known that sex is a powerful attractant. If it happens to have the side-effect of also making more offspring, well, each attracted sex-participant is, theoretically, still right there, helping out, and still enjoying sex. A participant who practices the trick-her-and-run tactic is taking the risk that his offspring won't survive due to lack-of-assistance, but he tries to compensate by having lots of offspring --"R-strategy" thinking, basically. As previously mentioned, if a society wants to rid itself of that tactic over the long run, then all it need do is ensure none of any practitioner's offspring survive, not even until birth! Overall, these things are very simple, very logical, very effective --and very destructive to that argument against abortion.

38. "The womb is naturally constructed to accommodate an unborn human. Thus, each one that implants into a womb has a right to be there, and should not be aborted." BAD DATA, since that argument ignores the fact that equally-natural miscarriages do occur. Some of them happen so soon after implantation that they are called "late periods" instead of "miscarriages". Also, there is something known as "Rh-factor rejection", an incompatibility between the mother's immune system and the unborn human, that almost always causes a miscarriage, unless modern medical technology is employed to intervene. Such a thing would never happen if that argument was completely valid.
htt.../americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/rhfactor.html
Also, there exists a completely different mechanism by which a mother's body might kill an unborn human, "fetal resorption". This phenomenon is fairly common in kangaroos; when the environment is poor in food, a pregnant kangaroo will literally suck out the life --and body-- of its womb-inhabitant, until nothing remains. Other mammals can accomplish fetal resorption as well, including humans (rarely).
htt.....ww.ucv.ve/fileadmin/user_upload/facultad_agronomia/Producion_Animal/Vitamins_in_Animal_and_Human_Nutrition.pdf
The existence of fetal resorption means one thing that drives at the heart of a significant number of anti-abortion arguments: It is perfectly natural for the unborn to be killed if conditions aren't adequate for supporting it. And growing humans happen to need more support --especially after birth-- than any other species, by a wide margin. Who is best situated to determine whether or not a particular unborn human can be adequately supported? Certainly not any abortion opponent!
Then there is the fact that a pregnancy is perfectly natural mindless biology in action. Do humans claim subservience to natural mindless biology, or do they claim superiority over natural mindless biology? If subservient, then why are medical procedures from immunizations to heart-bypass surgery tolerated? If subservient, then, whenever you happen to walk near a swamp, and a mosquito flies out to suck your blood, you have no right to swat it! But if we humans claim superiority over natural mindless biology, then why should any woman be required or even be expected to carry a pregnancy to term? It is pure hypocrisy (and K-strategy prejudice) to think one should be able to take a pill or have an operation, to deal with some unwanted natural-mindless-biological aspect of the body, like cancer -- while also thinking that an unwanted/involuntary pregnancy is somehow different than natural/mindless/biological, and requires subservience even if unwanted.

39. "Since sex is voluntary, and is often accompanied with some risk that pregnancy will result, it follows that by choosing to take the risk and engage in sex, the participants are voluntarily accepting the consequences, regardless of how undesirable they might be. Therefore pregnancies should be carried to term, and not aborted." FALSE, because there are plenty of other situations in which humans choose to do things, and refuse to accept the consequences. In an earthquake zone or a flood plain, for example, people buy insurance so that someone else will have to deal with the consequences! Also, humans will do things like build dikes in a flood plain, or irrigation canals in a desert, in response to (and refusing to accept) the consequences of having moved there. Then there are people who drink lots of alcohol and ruin their livers, but they can also obtain liver transplants. So, with all that precedent (and much more could be listed), why should sex-and-pregnancy be any different, especially when the unborn human is just an animal, and not a person? K-strategy prejudice, perhaps?
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:52:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
40. "Abortion denies choice to a man who wants to be a father." AS IT SHOULD, since the father directly contributes very little to a pregnancy. First of all, an ovum outweighs a sperm by about 100,000 times.
htt.../books.google.com/books?id=FChueCY3TsEC&pg=PT68&lpg=PT68
While both parents contribute roughly equal quantities of DNA or genetic instructions to a conception, all the biological hardware, the natural nanotechnology responsible for carrying out those instructions, come from the woman's ovum. And, after the built-in food resources of the ovum are used up, and the young human organism/blastocyst seeks more resources for further growth, via womb-implantation, all those additional resources will come from the woman, too.
Suppose a woman invested $100,000 of down-payment toward a boat, and some man invested $1. Also, the woman makes all other regular payments, plus extra payments for maintenance and insurance and improvements in the boat, while the man directly contributes nothing. If that man claimed half-ownership of the boat strictly on the basis of his investment, he would be laughed out of court. Therefore, since a man contributes so little to a pregnancy, the man deserves equally-little say in whether or not a pregnancy should be carried to term.
In more practical terms, if a man deserves to be a father, it won't be because he helped at the start of a pregnancy; it will be because he will be there to more-than-help, he will be there in a major supporting role, for many years afterward --and he will have found some ethical way to convince the woman of that. Why do abortion opponents so often hypocritically focus on the woman, and not on the man, whose behavior is often a major factor in why the woman seeks an abortion? In other words, if abortion opponents want to really succeed at reducing the abortion rate, they need act more intelligently, and attack all the fundamental causes, not just only the simple fact that an unwanted pregnancy exists. Because that's not the only factor involved, that leads to abortion, by far!

41. "It was absurd to link a Constitutional right to privacy with legalization of abortion." IRRELEVANT. That's because, regardless of the validity of the privacy argument, there are two other and perhaps-much-better Constitutional arguments available. First is the requirement to conduct a Census of all Persons every ten years. The Founding Fathers were right there in 1790 to specify the Questions that were asked in the very first Census, and which therefore distinguished Persons from non-Persons. The fact is, the Founding Fathers did not count chickens before they hatched, nor did they count Persons before they were born. And NO Census ever since has counted unborn humans as Persons.
Second, Amendment 13 forbids involuntary servitude outside of due process of law. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, and the unborn is not a person, then there is no conflict because an abortion merely kills an animal (which it certainly purely is, in scientific fact). But if the unborn is arbitrarily declared to be a person in spite of the scientific facts, then the unwilling pregnant woman is now in involuntary servitude to that unborn human, outside of due process of law. She has committed no crime, much less been convicted of one, such that involuntary servitude to the unborn can be required of her. Better, therefore, that granting personhood to the unborn be avoided in the first place. So, to all who would Amend the Constitution to grant personhood to unborn humans, exactly how can you do this without violating Amendment 13, whenever a woman does not desire to be pregnant?

42. "Modern technology allows premature babies to survive (be 'viable'); therefore abortions should be prohibited for unborn humans that become viable per technical means, since they could be forcibly born and thereby acquire legal person status." FALSE, mostly because the definition of "birth" can become extremely distorted as technology continues to improve.
For example, artificial wombs are being seriously researched. When perfected, it would then be possible to conduct fertilization in a petri dish, and move the zygote directly to the artificial womb, which could also be called an "ultimate incubator". Well, when exactly is this human considered to be "born", relevant to the 14th Amendment? When it is "viable" enough to no longer need that artificial-womb environment, such as typically occurs 9 months after fertilization, when a typical natural womb is involved? Then, doesn't that mean that "viability" should logically be defined such that no technical assistance is required, for a developing human to survive?
Meanwhile, viability alone is insufficient to grant personhood to an unborn human, during a pregnancy. Measurably animal-level are the minds that an unborn human has, even if the pregnancy stretches for ten full months after conception! Because, remember, infant humans also can't pass any scientific unprejudiced species-independent personhood tests, for several whole months after birth.

43. "Government should have the power to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term." IT ALREADY ALMOST DOES, but, logically, that means it also almost has the power to force women to abort wanted pregnancies. Remember that 13th Amendment? The only thing missing is an ordinary Law, perhaps something as ridiculous as "Pregnancy is now illegal." Any unwillingly pregnant woman could then be sentenced to involuntary servitude during pregnancy and childbirth and child-raising. Of course, that exact same Law could alternatively be used to enforce mandatory abortions of wanted pregnancies. Meanwhile, most people want Government to avoid passing ridiculous laws, and to leave ordinary folks alone when they aren't doing anything that negatively affects other people --which unborn humans most certainly aren't!

44. "In killing ordinary animals we attempt to do so in a painless manner, but abortion subjects the unborn human to extreme pain." The first part of that is indeed true, but the rest is not only PARTLY FALSE; it CAN BE ALWAYS FALSE. During the first six months of pregnancy, the brain is not connected to the spinal cord. Pain signals from the body of an unborn human being cut up by an abortion procedure simply cannot reach the brain. After six months, though, when the brain and the spinal cord are connected, it can be possible for pain signals to reach the brain. On the other hand, there is more than one way to perform an abortion. For example, the umbilical cord could be cut first-of-all inside the womb. Since nobody cares how painful or painless cutting the cord is after birth, nobody should care about cutting it in the womb. But if it is cut inside the womb (or even strongly clamped, without being cut), then the flow of oxygenated blood to the unborn human stops, and the brain will begin to shut down in less than a minute, painlessly. After about six minutes the brain will be dead, also painlessly. And after that time any more-ordinary abortion procedure could be performed.

45. "Abortion increases the chance of a future miscarriage." MISDIRECTION, since giving birth can also increase the chance of a future miscarriage --and so can miscarriage, itself. This is because pregnancy always causes the womb to become scarred, whether it ends via birth, or ends via miscarriage, or ends via abortion. A later pregnancy that happens to occur too-near the old scar tissue can be adversely affected by it. The problem is nothing more than a matter of statistics; it is well-documented how various women have successfully carried a dozen or more pregnancies to term, in spite of an occasional miscarriage.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:54:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
46. "The Hippocratic Oath forbids a doctor from performing an abortion." IRRELEVANT, because there are variations on that Oath which are accepted by the medical profession, and which permit a doctor to perform an abortion.

47. "The U.S. Declaration of Independence specifies a Right to Life, which therefore forbids abortion." IRRELEVANT, because the Actual Law Of The Land is the Constitution. Per the 14th Amendment, "Right to Life/Citizenship" only applies after birth.

48. "Abortion is a poor substitute for birth control." LARGELY IRRELEVANT, because sometimes birth control fails, leaving abortion as the only known remaining option that can ensure an unwanted pregnancy ends quickly. Note that even the abortion procedure can have a failure rate --there are some known survivors of botched abortions-- but it is also possible to attempt abortion more than once, if the first attempt is botched. The saying goes, after all, "If at first you don't succeed, try try again." In the end, abortion can always be 100% effective. For most other birth-control methods, they basically have just one chance to succeed.
So, banning abortion will not solve the problems posed by less-effective methods of birth control. And, to the extent that ordinary birth-control methods are less expensive than abortion, that is the extent to which the Law of Supply and Demand will encourage ordinary birth-control methods to be used, and reduce the numbers of women seeking abortions. Common contraceptives are effective most of the time, after all.

49. "Behind the scenes of the abortion-legalization movement are those who would profit from it, such as abortion doctors." MISDIRECTION, because that is no worse than saying baby-food and diaper manufacturers are behind the scenes of the anti-abortion movement. In actual fact the abortion-legalization movement was driven by circumstances experienced by many many individual women, and supported by others who compassionately understood those circumstances.
Meanwhile, a large group of abortion opponents happen to run a wide variety of businesses, and understand how the Law of Supply and Demand works. There exists much data regarding how businesses try to put each other out of business, so that they can control a market, restrict resources, raise prices, and thereby increase profits. But little is said about an alternate route that is just as profitable. By opposing abortion they seek to increase the number of people needing those resources, which causes prices to rise even without artificially restricting the supply. Extra people also increases competition for jobs, which tends to reduce wages (or, if there is inflation, the wage/price ratio). Those greedy business-operating abortion opponents care nothing about the human suffering they cause for millions of people, scrabbling for jobs and resources; those greedy business-operating abortion opponents, vastly outnumbering abortion doctors, only care about how much profit they can make from the lower wages they would pay and the higher prices they could charge, while causing that suffering.
One other relevant aspect to the preceding involves a notion, specified by some opponents of abortion, some of whom also oppose Welfare, that "If you want something, you should pay for it, not my taxes." Well, abortion opponents want babies to be born, so it logically follows that it is the abortion opponents who should be made to pay for that --and pay for the prenatal care, and pay all the child-raising costs, too. Some few are actually willing to put their money where their mouths are; the rest are just hypocrites, unwilling to put their money where their mouths are.
In the long run, though, it can't work, even if all abortion opponents were legally required to pay for what they want, to prevent abortions. That's because the concept creates a kind of "ecological niche" (not unlike Welfare) in which women who want babies can get others to pay for them, instead of for abortions, so why not have lots and lots of babies? There is always that genetic drive, of the selfish gene, to pass itself on, after all! And, we certainly know that such women do exist (and may be as unethical as those trick-her-and-run men)!
htt.../en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_Suleman
It is far too easy for any such system to be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of babies, in the long run. It is exactly why we have multiple methods of birth control, including abortion.

50. "Abortion is usually demanded by selfish people. Since selfishness is bad, abortion should be prohibited." UNBALANCED, because this argument fails to mention tricksters and stereotyped "welfare mothers", who selfishly want to pass their genes on, making others pay for it. Since there is selfishness on both sides of the Overall Abortion Debate, that is another argument that cancels itself out, to become Neutral.

51. "Abortion in America is preferentially (genocidally) being used to abort blacks over whites." MISDIRECTION, because a major reason for seeking an abortion involves comparing the cost of raising a child to the cost of an abortion. As long as black Americans earn less money on the average than white Americans, which makes it more difficult for blacks to raise children, more black women than white women will be seeking abortions. And even that has not prevented the rate-of-growth, of the black-American population, from being higher than the rate-of-growth of the white-American population, for decades. Only an idiot would claim that some population is being affected by "genocide" while that population keeps growing!
Meanwhile, opponents of abortion act like they genocidally want most of the human species to die (not just blacks!) in a Malthusian Catastrophe. The History of Easter Island proved that humanity is not immune to a Malthusian Catastrophe,
htt.....ww.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-malthusian-catastrophe.htm
--and Island Earth is simply/merely a bigger Island, than Easter Island. It logically would take longer to become overpopulated, but it is exactly as possible for Island Earth to become overpopulated. So, as long as abortion opponents focus on forcing unwanted births to happen, while they simultaneously fail to ensure that those mouths can be fed, that is the degree to which abortion opponents are "penny-wise and pound-foolish", such that their short-term so-called "pro life" goal is actually a long-term genocidal goal, a deliberate set of actions that threatens the majority of humanity.

52. "Abortion is being used to kill more girls than boys in certain countries." IRRELEVANT, because this is a self-correcting thing, over the long term. It is certainly true that some cultures give females a lesser value than males, and as a result more females are aborted than males in those cultures. But the Law of Supply and Demand rules all cultures in the end. For each such culture that begins aborting a disproportionate number of unborn females, roughly twenty years later the disproportionate number of mate-seeking males will discover how valuable females can be, when they are comparatively scarce. Since those males are also future controlling members of those cultures, it logically follows that there will eventually, inevitably, occur cultural shifts that assign females as much value as males, and thereby essentially eliminate any generic desire for sex-specific abortions. There may still be individual sex-specific abortions, such as when some couple wants only two children, a boy and a girl, and, if the second pregnancy isn't the desired sex, will use abortion to ensure that only the sex they want eventually gets born. But, so what? In the end, when lots of couples do that, it averages out, and the sex ratio does not get hugely unbalanced.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:57:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
53. "Abortion causes psychological harm to the formerly pregnant woman." UNPROVED, because it is certainly well known that harassment and denunciation by abortion opponents, toward women they see having-obtained or attempting-to-obtain abortions, causes psychological harm to those women. To prove that abortion alone can cause psychological harm, and to prove that this is distinct from the post-pregnancy drug-withdrawal symptoms previously described, it is necessary to study women who had abortions in some place where very little of such harassment and denunciation happens (or happened). It is possible that the former Soviet Union was one such place --abortion was actually the primary birth-control method for many women there, a free part of socialized medical care, while other birth-control methods were not free. But whether or not any such studies have been done...(!)

54. "Abortion increases the chance of breast cancer." UNPROVED. So far the data indicates that when girl teens drink lots of alcoholic beverages, that is more likely to cause breast cancer, later on in life, than abortion.
htt.....ww.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/teen-drinking-may-increas_n_1412312.html
And remember, a great many more teen girls drink, than drink and end up with unwanted pregnancies.

55. "If abortions were as available as some people want, then humanity would eventually go extinct! Therefore abortions must be prevented!" FEARMONGERING. There are millions of women who want children, and who are able to have children. Since they are therefore very unlikely to seek abortions, it logically follows that that group, plus an appropriate number of men, of course, could suffice to prevent the extinction of the human species. Even a mere ten thousand similarly-minded women could have a sufficiently diverse gene pool for indefinite survival. Easter Island started out with a mere two boatloads of people, and had an adequate gene pool for the population to thrive --until they used up their resources, that is.
htt.../genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask113

56. "The world needs more people." UTTERLY AND LUDICROUSLY FALSE. Quality-of-life is much more important than quantity-of-life (because too much of any good thing is always, always a bad thing), and, if everyone on Earth was to have a quality-of-life equivalent to that experienced by the average American, then humanity would need all the physical resources of at least three more Earths, to support that quantity of quality-of-life.
htt.....ww.populationeducation.org/docs/ppp/stuff.pdf
Since we don't have those extra Earths available, it logically follows that there are already too many people, for all of them to live high-quality lives. And for extra proof, just visit places where children are starving to death. Anyone who insists that human life is valuable should first ensure that all already-born humans have decent lives! And, only after they succeed at that --if they succeed at that-- then they might not look like idiots, insisting that even-more humans should be born.

57. "God wants us to be fruitful and multiply, even to the extent that sperm should not be wasted upon the ground; therefore abortion should be banned." UNPROVED. The Bible, after all, was written by humans. They merely claimed to have been Inspired by God, but it is a fact that humans are known to be able to lie, when they can benefit from it. And most certainly Moses, who started the Bible-writing project, created a government of the people, by the preachers, for the preachers -- with himself at the top of the heap.
As a thought-experiment, suppose you encountered this statement:
"God has Inspired me to write, 'Thou art gullible fools!'"
OK, actually you just did encounter that statement. Is it true? How do you know it isn't? If you ever in your life, even once, felt like a gullible fool, then might the statement be true, regardless of whether God Inspired it? That's the problem of the Bible (and all other Holy Works) in a nutshell! The Bible definitely contains things that cannot be literally true (the global Flood would have salt-poisoned every freshwater fish, and drowned every plant, on the planet, including olive trees, after 40 days of rainwater mixing with salty ocean water). However, the Bible also contains some things that are definitely true (archaeologists have found the city of the Philistines, for example, so we know they actually existed, regardless of whether or not anything else written about them is true --and some of those writings aren't anything more than propaganda written by victors).
But much of the Bible is unproved. One thing that is known, however, is that, preachers directly benefited from promoting population growth by every means possible --including banning homosexuality, masturbation, and any type other of sexual activity that can't result in pregnancy. Even the tale of Onan could be a simple distortion of someone who had, say, a heart attack during sex (quitting in the middle because he was already falling-down/dying).
They got more tithes from the larger "flock", for one thing. And they also acquired the manpower to attack and defeat neighboring tribes, thereby increasing the territory controlled by the preachers. Best of all, since they wrote the Bible, they could blame God for that greedy policy!
That greedy policy has been followed by most descendant Religions for thousands of years. One result was, for centuries the Catholic Church was the richest organization on the planet, besides being one of most influential.
htt.....ww.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_billions.htm
Another aspect of that policy was horrific, because it caused wars whenever preachers disagreed with each other. Many Europeans finally said "Enough!" after the Thirty Years War, and emigrated to America (in the Middle East that greedy Religious policy is still going strong, benefiting the preachers and no one else). Today, at least in the USA, we have "Separation of Church and State" specifically to prevent that horrific policy from being implemented here. But, have you noticed how Religions these days are trying harder than ever to acquire political power here? It's not only about abortion, at all!
Can you be certain therefore, that God was the one who wanted the people to multiply? Even if God did, there are also associated statements such as "replenish the Earth". Well, why isn't it obvious that we have done that thing, when humanity these days is the something like the third-most populous mammal on Earth, after rats and mice?
htt.....ww.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6599665/Humane-rat-trap-goes-global
Now, if you study what the Bible claimed God actually did instead of what the Bible claimed God said, you find a different policy. The claim is, God spent several "Days" Creating the Universe, and, afterward Created humanity, who thereby qualify as a sort of "God's offspring".
A straightforward "be fruitful and multiply policy" would, if followed by God, mean that humanity should have been created first. That policy is only about reproduction, see, and not about ensuring the offspring can survive afterward!
But God didn't do it that way, God followed a "be fruitful, then multiply" policy, in which "fruitful" refers to ensuring that future offspring could survive. We would do well to ignore the greedy Religions, and copy God's actions, in this matter. And if that means allowing abortions, because the parents aren't able to provide for offspring, so be it.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:59:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
58. "Ban abortion and kill old people instead. Most of them are no better than babies --or even unborn humans-- at contributing anything to society, while most babies will grow up and become contributors to society. This also solves the Medicare and Social Security problems." BAD DATA, because while not stated, that argument includes the faulty assumption that unborn humans are people. Otherwise the argument might perhaps make some sense (kind of like applying "triage" rules in a major crisis), but as it is, it promotes killing people instead of killing mere animals.

59. "Abortion is wrong because it results in the loss of a future of value." IRRELEVANT AND UNBALANCED, partly because it involves "potential", and partly because it makes unwarranted assumptions about "value". Every time someone commits suicide, that person is declaring that there is insufficient value to be experienced in living any longer. Just because others disagree, that doesn't make those others right. For example, in prior centuries slavers certainly opposed the idea of their slaves committing suicide, yet they eventually gave up on enslaving Native Americans, because there were so many revolts and suicides (when escape was sufficiently blocked) that there just wasn't enough "future value" in it.
htt.....ww.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0861124.html
Meanwhile, an unborn human lacks the brainpower to make any valuations whatsoever about the future (understanding that aspect of Time is another generic characteristic of personhood). There is again no reason to assume the valuations of others, about the future, is automatically superior to the valuation that any specific individual might make, based on available data.
For example, nowadays there are things like overpopulation and business-controlled resource restriction, to make future life far from valuable.
Here, since we are talking about an organism that only potentially can make a valuation about the future, we need to accept that the valuation it might make could be either positive or negative. So, like the Einstein/Hitler comparison made previously, this part of the argument becomes Neutral with respect to the Overall Abortion Debate. All in all, an aborted unborn human isn't going to "miss out", either positively or negatively, on what it doesn't understand.
Here again we can mention those small "growing" electronic machines, which potentially have futures of value as person-class machine-beings. Either their vandalizing must be accepted for nine months, or some other way must be found to let them acquire parts. Perhaps, most simply, abortion opponents should be required to pay for those parts!

60. "Abortion makes it more difficult for childless people to adopt a baby." FALSE, because politics and prejudice are what make adoption difficult; the world is over-full of adoptable babies, as proved by so many of them starving to death every year. If the politics regarding international adoptions was simplified, then anyone who wants to adopt will be able to succeed at it. And any who dislike the available choices will be exhibiting prejudice, such that they probably don't deserve to adopt.

In closing, it can be concluded that not only are abortion opponents wrong, they often distort the truth, exhibit prejudice, stupidly outright-deny various scientific facts, and could use their own logic to equate themselves with dead non-persons. Also, many lack compassion and/or are hypocritical and/or greedy, and/or cruel, and/or immoral, and/or unethical, and/or foolishly short-sighted, since their so-called "pro life" policy is actually genocidal, toward all of humanity, in the long run. Tsk, tsk!
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 1:11:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
i'm surprised that he came up with a good counterargument against "Native american culture dictates that if you kill it then you eat it". I could've sworn that it was a checkmate pro-abortion argument.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 1:14:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In closing, it can be concluded that not only are abortion opponents wrong, they often distort the truth, exhibit prejudice, stupidly outright-deny various scientific facts, and could use their own logic to equate themselves with dead non-persons. Also, many lack compassion and/or are hypocritical and/or greedy, and/or cruel, and/or immoral, and/or unethical, and/or foolishly short-sighted, since their so-called "pro life" policy is actually genocidal, toward all of humanity, in the long run. Tsk, tsk!


Lulz at this.

Also hilarious that you call the pro-lifers "lacking in compassion" when one of your arguments literally were that there is no evidence that human life has intrinsic value.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 1:49:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 1:11:58 AM, darkkermit wrote:
i'm surprised that he came up with a good counterargument against "Native american culture dictates that if you kill it then you eat it". I could've sworn that it was a checkmate pro-abortion argument.
lol

But the sheer number! XD
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 1:50:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 1:14:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
In closing, it can be concluded that not only are abortion opponents wrong, they often distort the truth, exhibit prejudice, stupidly outright-deny various scientific facts, and could use their own logic to equate themselves with dead non-persons. Also, many lack compassion and/or are hypocritical and/or greedy, and/or cruel, and/or immoral, and/or unethical, and/or foolishly short-sighted, since their so-called "pro life" policy is actually genocidal, toward all of humanity, in the long run. Tsk, tsk!


Lulz at this.

Also hilarious that you call the pro-lifers "lacking in compassion" when one of your arguments literally were that there is no evidence that human life has intrinsic value.

There is no need for intrinsic value. All there need be is a generally accepted valuation of persons, associated with "right to life".

Did you know that in the early days of settlements of New England, lobsters were routinely regarded as "trash catch", and given to the poor? Nowadays they are assigned a rather higher value than that. Which just goes to show that all valuations really are arbitrary. So, like I said, if people can agree on some particular valuation for persons, that's all they need to get along with each other. And, because we routinely talk about "right to life" for persons, it is obvious that we have generally assigned, and accepted, a quite high value for persons.

But it is still arbitrary, not intrinsic.
And its usefulness doesn't require it to be intrinsic, anyway.

So, regarding compassion, which is associated with one aspect of valuing persons, the abortion opponents seem to WANT persons to suffer deformities, while the pro-choice crowd is, I hope, properly horrified at such callousness.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 1:53:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 1:49:19 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 7/2/2012 1:11:58 AM, darkkermit wrote:
i'm surprised that he came up with a good counterargument against "Native american culture dictates that if you kill it then you eat it". I could've sworn that it was a checkmate pro-abortion argument.
lol


But the sheer number! XD

http://www.godlessgeeks.com...
#91.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 2:09:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 1:53:41 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/2/2012 1:49:19 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 7/2/2012 1:11:58 AM, darkkermit wrote:
i'm surprised that he came up with a good counterargument against "Native american culture dictates that if you kill it then you eat it". I could've sworn that it was a checkmate pro-abortion argument.
lol


But the sheer number! XD

http://www.godlessgeeks.com...
#91.

XD This thread is hilarious.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 2:22:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 1:50:01 AM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
At 7/2/2012 1:14:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
In closing, it can be concluded that not only are abortion opponents wrong, they often distort the truth, exhibit prejudice, stupidly outright-deny various scientific facts, and could use their own logic to equate themselves with dead non-persons. Also, many lack compassion and/or are hypocritical and/or greedy, and/or cruel, and/or immoral, and/or unethical, and/or foolishly short-sighted, since their so-called "pro life" policy is actually genocidal, toward all of humanity, in the long run. Tsk, tsk!


Lulz at this.

Also hilarious that you call the pro-lifers "lacking in compassion" when one of your arguments literally were that there is no evidence that human life has intrinsic value.

There is no need for intrinsic value. All there need be is a generally accepted valuation of persons, associated with "right to life".

Did you know that in the early days of settlements of New England, lobsters were routinely regarded as "trash catch", and given to the poor? Nowadays they are assigned a rather higher value than that. Which just goes to show that all valuations really are arbitrary. So, like I said, if people can agree on some particular valuation for persons, that's all they need to get along with each other. And, because we routinely talk about "right to life" for persons, it is obvious that we have generally assigned, and accepted, a quite high value for persons.

But it is still arbitrary, not intrinsic.
And its usefulness doesn't require it to be intrinsic, anyway.

So, regarding compassion, which is associated with one aspect of valuing persons, the abortion opponents seem to WANT persons to suffer deformities, while the pro-choice crowd is, I hope, properly horrified at such callousness.

I'm not calling you out for stating that life doesn't have intrinsic value, just your double standard.

I'm a moral nihilist, so I don't believe that life has intrinsic value. However, its rare that you'll find a non-moral nihilist argue that because moral argues almost always assume that. You then go around and then call pro-lifers com passionless without even setting a standard for what compassion is or isn't, and pretty much unjustifable to. You need a moral standard for judging someone as compassionate or not, yet you fail to do so.

Essentially, your arguing for moral nihilism. Your not judging the standard that *The pro-choice movement is better than the pro-life movement* since you didn't set a moral standard or value system. You can exhaust any argument to epistimological nihilism.

In any argument, you can accept certain arguments as factually correct. However, what any moral argumentation comes down to is a subjective cost-benefit analysis system or a subjective system of measuring which "moral system" is best.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 2:55:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Folks, the tenth posting contains a significant formatting error. Somehow the single paragraph associated with #35 got inserted into the middle of #29. When reading #29, you should skip that #35 paragraph. Sorry.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 3:35:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 2:22:11 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/2/2012 1:50:01 AM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
At 7/2/2012 1:14:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
In closing, it can be concluded that not only are abortion opponents wrong, they often distort the truth, exhibit prejudice, stupidly outright-deny various scientific facts, and could use their own logic to equate themselves with dead non-persons. Also, many lack compassion and/or are hypocritical and/or greedy, and/or cruel, and/or immoral, and/or unethical, and/or foolishly short-sighted, since their so-called "pro life" policy is actually genocidal, toward all of humanity, in the long run. Tsk, tsk!


Lulz at this.

Also hilarious that you call the pro-lifers "lacking in compassion" when one of your arguments literally were that there is no evidence that human life has intrinsic value.

There is no need for intrinsic value. ...if people can agree on some particular valuation for persons, that's all they need to get along with each other. And, because we routinely talk about "right to life" for persons, it is obvious that we have generally assigned, and accepted, a quite high value for persons.

But it is still arbitrary, not intrinsic.
And its usefulness doesn't require it to be intrinsic, anyway.

I'm not calling you out for stating that life doesn't have intrinsic value, just your double standard.

What double standard? I thought I clearly indicated the following:
There is no such thing as intrinsic value.
Humans are able to assign arbitrary valuations.
Humans are able to accept arbitrary valuations.
Compassion can be associated with an arbitrary valuation.

The problem with the abortion opponents is that they are mistakenly valuing unborn humans as equal to persons. A handicapped person is worthy of compassion. If the handicap and the person are both in the womb, it is logical to let the person continue to live to experience what possibilities he or she can, despite the handicap. So, abortion opponents think they are exhibiting compassion toward unborn handicapped persons. But since they are wrong about the personhood of the unborn --since the unborn are measurably not equal to persons-- all the believed compassion of abortion opponents is equivalent of "wasted effort". They might as well try to push over Ayers Rock.

Meanwhile, pro-choicers understand that the unborn are not persons and so don't need either significant valuation or compassion --but of those "vehicles under construction" for future persons, the "lemons" should be scrapped! When abortion opponents force future persons to be handicapped, by insisting defective bodies be born, that rankles. And since the pro-choice view regarding the unborn and personhood is the correct view, it logically follows that the deluded abortion opponents are not actually exhibiting compassion toward persons.

I am not being inconsistent (the hallmark of a double standard).
If you think compassion requires an intrinsic valuation, please explain why.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 4:18:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 1:11:58 AM, darkkermit wrote:
i'm surprised that he came up with a good counterargument against "Native american culture dictates that if you kill it then you eat it". I could've sworn that it was a checkmate pro-abortion argument.

Haha, this is great.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:47:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol. His argument's are pretty much "right to life" doesn't exist. Let's kill people.

Elvonn, I'd like to debate you on a specific abortion argument (as long as it is reasonable), that you would chose from here.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:59:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, under what arbitrary principle do you classify fetus' as not humans?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 1:45:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:47:35 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Lol. His argument's are pretty much "right to life" doesn't exist. Let's kill people.

Elvonn, I'd like to debate you on a specific abortion argument (as long as it is reasonable), that you would chose from here.

Obviously you haven't understood what I've written. If I assumed you did that during a Debate, then participating in that Debate would be wasted effort on my part.

Just to clarify some things:
There is no INHERENT pre-existing thing as a "right to life".
It is an invented thing.
It was invented for a specific purpose.
The specific purpose was, it eases the way for people to get along with each other.
It exists because it was invented.
And anything that can exist can also be mis-used.
Which pro-lifers do; they mis-use the invention.
They mis-use it by trying to apply it where it shouldn't be applied.
They apply it to mere animals, equating them with people.

In another post you wrote something about me indicating that a fetus is not human.
Which is NOT something I stated, anywhere in those 100,000+ characters of text. In fact I used the phrase "unborn human" instead of "fetus" almost exclusively.

I invite you to actually READ/STUDY what I wrote in those 60 refutations. Perhaps you should start with #10.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!