NationStates Jolt Archive

There seems to be a great deal of writing laws as a publicity stunt, that don't do anything except make life a major inconvenience. Legislation that is passed to appease certain parts of a political party that doesn't actually do shit.

You would think that the parts of the Republican party who clamored for this ban would realize that the ban is about as real as the Assault Weapons Ban was real - just fluff and nonsense that turns the actual activity into something mildly inconvenient.

I'm talking about the partial birth abortion ban. It wasn't widely used, and was used only where a doctor's judgment thought it was advantageous.

Considering that most lawmakers aren't doctors, I'd rather get my medical decisions from a doctor - not a lawmaker.

Apparently, doctors are not as stupid as lawmakers.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/10/shots_assist_in_aborting_fetuses/

In response to the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, many abortion providers in Boston and around the country have adopted a defensive tactic. To avoid any chance of partially delivering a live fetus, they are injecting fetuses with lethal drugs before procedures.

That clinical shift in late-term abortions goes deeply against the grain, some doctors say: It poses a slight risk to the woman and offers her no medical benefit.

More risk to the woman - thanks lawmakers.

I will never understand your view of the world.

There seems to be a great deal of writing laws as a publicity stunt, that don't do anything except make life a major inconvenience. Legislation that is passed to appease certain parts of a political party that doesn't actually do shit.

You would think that the parts of the Republican party who clamored for this ban would realize that the ban is about as real as the Assault Weapons Ban was real - just fluff and nonsense that turns the actual activity into something mildly inconvenient.

I'm talking about the partial birth abortion ban. It wasn't widely used, and was used only where a doctor's judgment thought it was advantageous.

Considering that most lawmakers aren't doctors, I'd rather get my medical decisions from a doctor - not a lawmaker.

Apparently, doctors are not as stupid as lawmakers.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/10/shots_assist_in_aborting_fetuses/



More risk to the woman - thanks lawmakers.

You're turning dangerously liberal RO :)

Not necessarily. Many conservatives are for smaller government -- which makes me wonder why they seem to support the current administration and its micromanagement of people's lives.

the partial birth abortion ban is indeed just for show.

it helps to keep the very religious who oppose abortion firmly in the repubican camp. people who would otherwise not ally themselves with a party that mostly works against their best interests.

its an effective tactic. i cant say that i blame them for using it.

Not necessarily. Many conservatives are for smaller government -- which makes me wonder why they seem to support the current administration and its micromanagement of people's lives.

Problem is you have religious and social conservatives in charge of the republican party which is supposed to be about restricting government. They've hijacked it into the big government party.

I agree, this is bullshit. They should have just made abortion IN GENERAL illegal. They should make abortion a capital offense, and not only that, but increase funding for alternatives such as adoption.

I will never understand your view of the world.

Let me explain it to you then:

I believe that the Federal Government has grown too powerful over the years.

The end result is what I call "winner take all" politics. Both parties are willing to say AND do anything to win control - from which they will rule our lives.

Republicans (and I'm not even talking neocons) want to put more religion in your life (I'm religious - but that's my business - if you want to be an atheist, then that's your business). They want to control a woman's body and medical decisions. They want to keep you from watching porn, or having sex in any way except heterosexual married in the missionary position for procreation alone.

Democrats want to classify things they don't like hearing as hate speech - they want to shut down radio stations they don't like - they want to take away firearms (the vast majority of whose owners never commit a crime or have an accident) - and want to snuff out your religious expression.

Both parties will talk as though these are not their real goals - that they're merely making good, logical adjustments to your life - modest infringements - and that if they were really after all that, it would have already happened, or you could find it word for word in their speeches.

But you won't find it word for word - but the intent is there.

My position is that of the Founding Fathers. The Federal government is, was, and will remain the greatest threat to civil liberty regardless of which party is in control. That's the main reason behind the Constitution - to defend us against the Government. To limit and constrain its powers.

Both parties, however, see it as something to evade. They will imply constantly that if they add a law, or threaten to make an Amendment, or nominate a Supreme Court judge (to change the interpretation), that they are acting mostly to prevent US from harming OURSELVES.

When it is the government that is the primary source of harm.

Additionally, the Federal bureaucracy is bloated and powerful beyond your wildest imaginings. Dysfunctional, yes. Extremely inefficient, yes. But it also has the power to regulate - which in essence is the power to write law. Most bills empowering the various parts of the Federal bureaucracy are written too vaguely. The Supreme Court acknowledged this in the mid-1990s when they said that the Clean Air Act was unconstitutional - basically, the EPA could make up regulations out of whole cloth without recourse to representation.

They stated that the only way to write a Constitutional regulation would be to specify it in detail in the original bill.

Now, go out and read the entire Code of Federal Regulations. 99% of it isn't in any bill.

I think your problem Fleck, is that you think that people are either Democrats or Republicans. That you're either FOR the war, or AGAINST it. That there's no middle ground. That individuals are the threat - and that the government is good (or at least benign).

Wake up.

Not necessarily. Many conservatives are for smaller government -- which makes me wonder why they seem to support the current administration and its micromanagement of people's lives.

Because we have only two choices.

At this point, the Democrats want to micromanage my life in a way that would directly affect me.

While I think that abortion is a good tool for doctors and women, it doesn't directly affect me. It just pisses me off when Republicans pass shit like this.

Problem is you have religious and social conservatives in charge of the republican party which is supposed to be about restricting government. They've hijacked it into the big government party.

Yes... which is why I wonder there hasn't been a movement to split off into a truly fiscally conservative party and leave this big government behind.

Yes... which is why I wonder there hasn't been a movement to split off into a truly fiscally conservative party and leave this big government behind.

Because the two party system and Federal government power makes it a "winner take all" system.

Neither party can split, because they would lose.

Yes... which is why I wonder there hasn't been a movement to split off into a truly fiscally conservative party and leave this big government behind.

Kat, there is a fiscally conservative party that has been gaining a fair amount of momentum in recent years, which is to say, the Libertarian party. The point is that, however, the same people who desire fiscal conservativism are the same people who believe in good family values...such as not murdering pre born children.

I agree, this is bullshit. They should have just made abortion IN GENERAL illegal. They should make abortion a capital offense, and not only that, but increase funding for alternatives such as adoption.

Because there are so many kids in foster homes and orphanages that have already been adopted?

When people who say this are willing to adopt the unwanted children languishing in the system, I will be all for it. As long as there are kids who are thrown out on the street at 18 after they age out from these institutions -- sorry, I will not support the emotional and physical abuse of which they are victims.

Kat, there is a fiscally conservative party that has been gaining a fair amount of momentum in recent years, which is to say, the Libertarian party. The point is that, however, the same people who desire fiscal conservativism are the same people who believe in good family values...such as not murdering pre born children.

Incorrect.

I'm fiscally conservative, and I am for the right for women to have abortions.

Kat, there is a fiscally conservative party that has been gaining a fair amount of momentum in recent years, which is to say, the Libertarian party. The point is that, however, the same people who desire fiscal conservativism are the same people who believe in good family values...such as not murdering pre born children.

You mean scraping out groups of cells, or causing the body to expel them in the first three months, which is when the majority of abortions take place.

Here.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/pre-baked.jpg

Incorrect.

I'm fiscally conservative, and I am for the right for women to have abortions.

You are in the minority. :)

You mean scraping out groups of cells, or causing the body to expel them in the first three months, which is when the majority of abortions take place.

Must I lecture you on Heraclitus, dear Kitty?

You are in the minority. :)

You know there's something wrong with your posts when you look more extreme than I do, Gens.

You know there's something wrong with your posts when you look more extreme than I do, Gens.

My friend, I am not denying that there are fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal. I am merely saying that, generally speaking, the same people who want don't want to pay hand and foot in tax dollars are the same people who are married and have children, and so respect the sanctity of marriage and all that comes with it. We are talking about, for the most part, good middle and upper class Christian gentlemen who don't like the idea of homosexuals forcibly taking children and eating their brains (Alright, the last bit was hyperbole...I couldn't resist. But you get the point, yes?)

My friend, I am not denying that there are fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal. I am merely saying that, generally speaking, the same people who want don't want to pay hand and foot in tax dollars are the same people who are married and have children, and so respect the sanctity of marriage and all that comes with it. We are talking about, for the most part, good middle and upper class Christian gentlemen who don't like the idea of homosexuals forcibly taking children and eating their brains (Alright, the last bit was hyperbole...I couldn't resist. But you get the point, yes?)

I'm not socially liberal.

I don't want the government interfering in my private life. It shouldn't interfere in anyone else's life, either, unless a profound Federal interest can be shown. That's libertarian. Or classic liberalism (not the current "modern" liberal).

What profound interest can you show for the Federal government wanting a fetus to survive regardless of the wishes or health of the mother?

Just because some people (a minority) respect the sanctity of marriage, doesn't mean that others should be forced to respect it.

Can you show me a profound Federal interest in where, how, and with whom people should have sex?

Must I lecture you on Heraclitus, dear Kitty?

A woman's right to do what she wants with ther own body has nothing to do with dead Greek guys. Or your religion.

There seems to be a great deal of writing laws as a publicity stunt, that don't do anything except make life a major inconvenience.
I think your mistake is in assuming that this "partial birth abortion" ban was ever intended to do something other than inconvenience women.

This ban was never going to reduce the number of abortions performed. Ever. It was never going to save the life of a single human being or human fetus. Ever. It wasn't designed to.

The entire point of the ban was to punish and harm women, and force them to seek less safe medical procedures if they dare to exercise their legal right to choose. The only purpose of this law was to inconvenience and endanger female human beings. That's it.

It's working exactly as intended.

Must I lecture you on Heraclitus, dear Kitty?

Woooo for being patronising!

You are in the minority. :)

Actually, no he isn't. Not by a long shot, if the politics of the rest of the world are considered.

Bottle: True. But what can we do about it? It's not like we have the chance to influence things. I don't agree with Remote Observer all that often, but he's right about one thing: the two superparties have far too much control, and they exert it in ways that makes them more powerful and keeps them in power. The people in the parties who are actually getting elected don't give a damn about the people or actually doing their jobs in the way it was intended...they only want more power.

Sure, there are plenty of good people in the lower echelons of both parties, but they're not seeing what's really happening. Our system needs a lot of work, and sadly, I don't think we'll ever be able to fix it.

Bottle: True. But what can we do about it?
Stop voting for people who advocate stripping fundamental human rights from 51% of the population.

Really pretty simple.

Must I lecture you on Heraclitus, dear Kitty?

*hands Gens an egg*
You may want to wear earplugs tonight. They generally start crowing at 4:30am or thereabouts.

My friend, I am not denying that there are fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal. I am merely saying that, generally speaking, the same people who want don't want to pay hand and foot in tax dollars are the same people who are married and have children, and so respect the sanctity of marriage and all that comes with it. We are talking about, for the most part, good middle and upper class Christian gentlemen who don't like the idea of homosexuals forcibly taking children and eating their brains (Alright, the last bit was hyperbole...I couldn't resist. But you get the point, yes?)

can you post more often here please. you make me laugh.

Stop voting for people who advocate stripping fundamental human rights from 51% of the population.

Really pretty simple.
Not anywhere near as simple as you make it out to be, Bottle. Sure, you and I will never vote for a Republican, but that only leaves us with the Democrats as an alternative because our system is that screwed up. And I don't know if you've noticed, but the Dems are hardly better than the Republicans.

Gens Romae: Who is Heraclitus?

*hands Gens an egg*
You may want to wear earplugs tonight. They generally start crowing at 4:30am or thereabouts.

The point I was making, dear Kitty, is that you say that it is merely a bundle of cells. I say, however, that all things are in flux and in the state of becoming, and therefore we cannot possess a sure knowledge of any material thing based soley on its appearance and state in the Heraclitean flux. Indeed, we cannot base our decisions soley on what we perceive in the material world. We must take up, at least momentarily, the Cynical suspension of belief.

You say it is merely a bundle of cells. Indeed, I agree with you that it looks like a bundle of cells. But is it soley a bundle of cells? We cannot say that it is or it isn't soley based on our perception, for surely our perception often leads us astray. Why, just the other day, my grandfather and I were traveling to the local Catholic church, and we passed a sign. I thought the sign said "Professional neighborhood packaging." My grandfather thought the sign said "Professional neighborhood painting." He later went back to inspect the sign more closely, and found it to say "Professional neighborhood policing."

So again, I wish to stress this point that we cannot base our opinions soley by our perceptions, especially as concerning things that are in rapid flux, as is an embryo.

Rather, we should judge a thing not by its state in becoming, but rather as the ends to which it is becoming. The embryo, therefore, is not soley an embryo, but is undergoing a directed, ordered change towards another state.

We, then, should not judge by the state it is in, but by the directed, ordered change, by the emmanent Form of the thing in question, which undoubtedly is the Form of man.

If you kill an embryo, then, even if it is merely a second, half a second, indeed a quarter of a second or less newly created, it nonetheless possesses a Human Soul, the emmanent Form of man, and is undergoing an ordered, directed flux towards Manhood, and so to extinguish that life of the embryo is not to kill merely a bundle of cells, but that which is of the Form of man, and possessing of a human soul.

Therefore, from the moment of creation, an embryo must be treated as a human person, and to kill it is to murder a man.

You say "abortion," whereas I say "murder."

Gens Romae: Who is Heraclitus?

A Greek philosopher known for his development of a concept of flux long before it was known in scientific terms.

You say "abortion," whereas I say "murder."
All the flowery language in the world won't change the fact that you're wrong.

Murder = the unlawful killing of a human being.

Abortion is legal in the US. Even if a fetus is a human being, it's still not murder to kill one.

A Greek philosopher known for his development of a concept of flux long before it was known in scientific terms.

The inventor of the flush toilet?

Rather, we should judge a thing not by its state in becoming, but rather as the ends to which it is becoming. The embryo, therefore, is not soley an embryo, but is undergoing a directed, ordered change towards another state.

We, then, should not judge by the state it is in, but by the directed, ordered change, by the emmanent Form of the thing in question, which undoubtedly is the Form of man.

"You are dust, and to dust you shall return."

We are all undergoing a change to a state of non-living. By your logic, we should have no regard for human life because it is all going to die anyway. You do not kill the soul, you kill the body. They are all going to die: why respect them for what they are instead of what they will be?

it nonetheless possesses a Human Soul

Forgive me if I find your religious beliefs decidedly unconvincing as part of a scientific or legal argument.

You are assuming from the fore that there is but a single law which is to be observed, and that human law is the only there is. I, like Socrates, cannot take a relativist approach to morality, and, so like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle uphold the idea of an absolute natural law, by which every single human being, to the extent they are able, are bound.

The extinguishment of the life of any innocent human being, by its very nature, causes a sense of disgust in absolutely any person to hear of it. Indeed, the extinguishment of even the life of a guilty person, though we understand it to be occassionally justified, will cause a sense of revulsion in most, if not all, people.

Indeed, the vast majority of pro abortion people whom I have met, generally speaking, justify their opinion the same as Katganistan has, which is to say, that it is does not appear to be a human person, but rather merely a bundle of cells.

Most pro abortionists do not recognize the embryo as being a human person, and so it is not because these same people do not think that the extinguishment of an innocent human life is intrinsically evil, but that they do not recognize that this is in fact a human life...indeed, much like the Nazis were brainwashed into not recognizing the personhood of the Jews.

Indeed, Adolf Hitler did not paint the Jews as evil criminals who needed to purged from the Fatherland, but rather as monsters who weren't even human. Rest you assured, it is hard to kill someone, and the Nazis and pro abortionists are much alike insofar as they emotionally gird themselves by pushing away the idea that they might indeed be slaughtering an innocent human person.

For my own part, I care not what the US law says, for if it contradicts the Natural Law, by which every human person's conscience is bound, it is not law, but chaos.

Absolutely not, for the emmanent of man draws it towards its most perfect state, which is to say, man in his prime. Death, therefore, is not part of the form of man, but the degredation of manhood. If you want to use the Holy Bible, then, you shall note that death entered the world through sin.

Forgive me if I find your religious beliefs decidedly unconvincing as part of a scientific or legal argument.

I mean "human soul" in the Aristotelian sense, man.

Rest you assured, it is hard to kill someone

No, it's not.

For my own part, I care not what the US law says, for if it contradicts the Natural Law, by which every human person's conscience is bound, it is not law, but chaos.

I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I care what US law says, because I don't want to go to jail. If there's something in the Bible that I believe, and it contradicts US law, well then that's too bad.

I'm not here to impose Christianity on everyone else. It's their choice what to believe or not believe, and how to interpret it.

Worry more about your own religious salvation - leave others to their own decisions in that regard.

snip

My friend, I am not preaching Christian values. I am preaching the philosophical doctrines of those who never even heard of Christ, yet arrived to the same conclusions by virtue of reason alone. Reject the Scriptures if you want, but you cannot merely brush away what the Greeks arrived at sheerly by human reason.

You are assuming from the fore that there is but a single law which is to be observed, and that human law is the only there is. I, like Socrates, cannot take a relativist approach to morality, and, so like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle uphold the idea of an absolute natural law, by which every single human being, to the extent they are able, are bound.

M'kay, basically what many laws attempt.

The extinguishment of the life of any innocent human being, by its very nature, causes a sense of disgust in absolutely any person to hear of it. Indeed, the extinguishment of even the life of a guilty person, though we understand it to be occassionally justified, will cause a sense of revulsion in most, if not all, people.

So you are against the death penalty and offensive (attacking people) wars, yes?

Indeed, the vast majority of pro abortion people whom I have met, generally speaking, justify their opinion the same as Katganistan has, which is to say, that it is does not appear to be a human person, but rather merely a bundle of cells.

Just as an egg isn't a chicken... or how aluminum ore in a factory isn't a soda can.

Most pro abortionists do not recognize the embryo as being a human person, and so it is not because these same people do not think that the extinguishment of an innocent human life is intrinsically evil, but that they do not recognize that this is in fact a human life...

Because a fetus is more like a tumor or a parasite than you or me. Yet I doubt you oppose the killing of those.

GODWIN

Just no, I'm done here.

My friend, I am not preaching Christian values. I am preaching the philosophical doctrines of those who never even heard of Christ, yet arrived to the same conclusions by virtue of reason alone. Reject the Scriptures if you want, but you cannot merely brush away what the Greeks arrived at sheerly by human reason.

Killing people doesn't require any brushing away.

And abortion is not murder.

You are assuming from the fore that there is but a single law which is to be observed, and that human law is the only there is. I, like Socrates, cannot take a relativist approach to morality, and, so like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle uphold the idea of an absolute natural law, by which every single human being, to the extent they are able, are bound.

The extinguishment of the life of any innocent human being, by its very nature, causes a sense of disgust in absolutely any person to hear of it. Indeed, the extinguishment of even the life of a guilty person, though we understand it to be occassionally justified, will cause a sense of revulsion in most, if not all, people.

Indeed, the vast majority of pro abortion people whom I have met, generally speaking, justify their opinion the same as Katganistan has, which is to say, that it is does not appear to be a human person, but rather merely a bundle of cells.

Most pro abortionists do not recognize the embryo as being a human person, and so it is not because these same people do not think that the extinguishment of an innocent human life is intrinsically evil, but that they do not recognize that this is in fact a human life...indeed, much like the Nazis were brainwashed into not recognizing the personhood of the Jews.

Indeed, Adolf Hitler did not paint the Jews as evil criminals who needed to purged from the Fatherland, but rather as monsters who weren't even human. Rest you assured, it is hard to kill someone, and the Nazis and pro abortionists are much alike insofar as they emotionally gird themselves by pushing away the idea that they might indeed be slaughtering an innocent human person.

For my own part, I care not what the US law says, for if it contradicts the Natural Law, by which every human person's conscience is bound, it is not law, but chaos.

Godfail.

So you are against the death penalty and offensive (attacking people) wars, yes?

I actually have been seriously reconsidering my position on the death penalty. On one hand, the death penalty isn't necessarily evil. It is occassionally a necessary action to defend society against dangerous criminals.

On the other hand, the Stoics proclaim that any punishment should serve to rehabilitate rather than punish in the spirit of vengeance, proclaiming the universal brotherhood of all men.

However, I ask myself: What about those who cannot be rehabilitated?

So generally speaking, I'm really not sure what I think about the death penalty. However, I will be the first to say that I don't advocate aggressive war, especially in light of the Church's teaching on the Just War.

Just as an egg isn't a chicken... or how aluminum ore in a factory isn't a soda can.

An egg isn't a chicken...unless it's been fertilized, at which point it is in the state of becoming a chicken, and so should be treated as a chicken. I'd say the same about aluminum ore in a factory.

Because a fetus is more like a tumor or a parasite than you or me. Yet I doubt you oppose the killing of those.

A tumor cannot be anything else but a tumor. A parasite can be nothing else but a parasite. A fetus, however, is in the process of becoming a man.

Just no, I'm done here.

I quote Fr. Corappi: If you take all the Hitlers, all the Stalins, all the Sadaam Housseins in the world, you still won't have reached the horror that is abortion.

I quote Fr. Corappi: If you take all the Hitlers, all the Stalins, all the Sadaam Housseins in the world, you still won't have reached the horror that is abortion.

Godwin!

Seriously, blathering on and on about how evil abortion is has basically zero influence with anyone - other than those who already agree with your opinion. Why bother? Just to hear yourself talk?

Many conservatives are for smaller government

well, that's what they keep claiming, despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary.

The point I was making, dear Kitty, is that you say that it is merely a bundle of cells. I say, however, that all things are in flux and in the state of becoming, and therefore we cannot possess a sure knowledge of any material thing based soley on its appearance and state in the Heraclitean flux. Indeed, we cannot base our decisions soley on what we perceive in the material world. We must take up, at least momentarily, the Cynical suspension of belief.

You say it is merely a bundle of cells. Indeed, I agree with you that it looks like a bundle of cells. But is it soley a bundle of cells? We cannot say that it is or it isn't soley based on our perception, for surely our perception often leads us astray. Why, just the other day, my grandfather and I were traveling to the local Catholic church, and we passed a sign. I thought the sign said "Professional neighborhood packaging." My grandfather thought the sign said "Professional neighborhood painting." He later went back to inspect the sign more closely, and found it to say "Professional neighborhood policing."

If we throw out observation of the material world, we throw out all of science. Is that really what you want?


Most pro abortionists do not recognize the embryo as being a human person, and so it is not because these same people do not think that the extinguishment of an innocent human life is intrinsically evil, but that they do not recognize that this is in fact a human life...indeed, much like the Nazis were brainwashed into not recognizing the personhood of the Jews.

Indeed, Adolf Hitler did not paint the Jews as evil criminals who needed to purged from the Fatherland, but rather as monsters who weren't even human. Rest you assured, it is hard to kill someone, and the Nazis and pro abortionists are much alike insofar as they emotionally gird themselves by pushing away the idea that they might indeed be slaughtering an innocent human person.


Godwin.

If you kill an embryo, then, even if it is merely a second, half a second, indeed a quarter of a second or less newly created, it nonetheless possesses a Human Soul, the emmanent Form of man, and is undergoing an ordered, directed flux towards Manhood, and so to extinguish that life of the embryo is not to kill merely a bundle of cells, but that which is of the Form of man, and possessing of a human soul.

Therefore, from the moment of creation, an embryo must be treated as a human person, and to kill it is to murder a man.

You say "abortion," whereas I say "murder."

a scenario for you:

suppose you found yourself in this situation. you are in a fertility clinic for some reason. in this fertility clinic there is a petri dish on the table, a petri dish which you know has two blastocysts on it, ready to be implanted. also in the room is a 5 year old child. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one of the two - petri dish or kindergartener. which do you save?

I think your mistake is in assuming that this "partial birth abortion" ban was ever intended to do something other than inconvenience women.

This ban was never going to reduce the number of abortions performed. Ever. It was never going to save the life of a single human being or human fetus. Ever. It wasn't designed to.

The entire point of the ban was to punish and harm women, and force them to seek less safe medical procedures if they dare to exercise their legal right to choose. The only purpose of this law was to inconvenience and endanger female human beings. That's it.

It's working exactly as intended.

And this bill was made even more insidious by the fact that the vast majority of women who have late-term abortions are doing so, not because they actually want to have an abortion, but because they and their doctors have determined that it is the best medical choice. So all they have done here is make pregnancy and abortion less safe for women in a lame attempt to chip away at a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. :headbang:

If we throw out observation of the material world, we throw out all of science. Is that really what you want?

Strawman.

Godwin.

Doesn't apply when the atrocity in question is greater than the analogy drawn from the holocaust.

And this bill was made even more insidious by the fact that the vast majority of women who have late-term abortions are doing so, not because they actually want to have an abortion, but because they and their doctors have determined that it is the best medical choice. So all they have done here is make pregnancy and abortion less safe for women in a lame attempt to chip away at a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. :headbang:

If a doctor said that it is in your best interest to kill your grandfather in his sleep, would you do it?

So flux means that a chunk of Aluminum is a Bicycle and I'm already a college graduate?

My parents will be releived, here we thought we were going to have to spend over $100,000 to get me there. :rolleyes:

I quote Fr. Corappi: If you take all the Hitlers, all the Stalins, all the Sadaam Housseins in the world, you still won't have reached the horror that is

...sexual freedom for women?

Doesn't apply when the atrocity in question is greater than the analogy drawn from the holocaust.

Nonsense. Of course it applies. As a thread grows longer the probability of comparison to Hitler or the Nazis approaches 1. With you it reached 1.

The fact that you believe abortion to be even worse than the holocaust doesn't change the above.

If a doctor said that it is in your best interest to kill your grandfather in his sleep, would you do it?

depends on why that would be in your best interests, no? if it was a vital, pressing interest like that when he wakes up he'll be a zombie and start eating the brains of you and your cousins, hell yeah, blast the fucker.

...sexual freedom for women?

The murder of an innocent child has nothing to do with a woman's sexual freedom, even if a woman's sexual freedom were to be taken into consideration.

depends on why that would be in your best interests, no? if it was a vital, pressing interest like that when he wakes up he'll be a zombie and start eating the brains of you and your cousins, hell yeah, blast the fucker.

Just so long as we are clear on the fact that pro abortionists hate their grandfather.:)

We have a lovely little sign hereabouts on the highway. Big one.

You call it abortion.
God calls it murder.

I always wonder. Where?
I must have missed that part of the Bible. Or has God been talking to the sign owner and not me? I find that offensive and grossly unfair. I think I'm a decent conversationalist. Why doesn't God talk to me? Is he pissed because I don't believe in him? He could certainly fix that if he came over for a chat.

Just so long as we are clear on the fact that pro abortionists hate their grandfather.:)

It's possible. I'm not sure. Never in my life actually met a "pro abortionist." Next time you meet one, maybe you should ask.

The murder of an innocent child has nothing to do with a woman's sexual freedom, even if a woman's sexual freedom were to be taken into consideration.

So do you actually just not read posts if they happen to prove your use of certain words to be fallacious? Or is it that you don't read anyone's posts at all?

The murder of an innocent child has nothing to do with a woman's sexual freedom

When the "horror" of abortion is elevated to a level beyond Stalin and Hitler, something more is at play than a concern for the "sanctity of life."

The fact that most "pro-life" activists aren't also radical animal rights activists indicates a similar tendency, if somewhat less definitively.

The fact that most "pro-life" activists aren't also radical animal rights activists indicates a similar tendency, if somewhat less definitively.


Animals are not human persons.

Animals are not human persons.

Neither are fetuses, but both facts should be irrelevant if one is "pro-life."

But of course "pro-life" is really just a euphemism for "anti-abortion."

Neither are fetuses

Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates would disagree.

But of course "pro-life" is really just a euphemism for "anti-abortion."

I am pro innocent human life.

Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates would disagree.

And they know everything? Seriously, if you're going back thousands of years for your sources of knowledge, you're bound to miss something.

I am pro innocent human life.

Hey, cool! Me too! Wanna start a club?

Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates would disagree.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I am pro innocent human life.

Oh well you know, humans aren't innocent because Eve ate an apple. Those fetuses aren't even baptized. They are nothing but sinners.

I notice how you never respond when your arguments get totally WTFPWNED though. You just ignore it and hope no one notices. Who you think you foolin, fool?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

You realize that Ad Verecundiam is only fallacious when the authority in question isn't actually authoritative in respect to the subject in question, yes?

Oh well you know, humans aren't innocent because Eve ate an apple. Those fetuses aren't even baptized. They are nothing but sinners.

I notice how you never respond when your arguments get totally WTFPWNED though. You just ignore it and hope no one notices. Who you think you foolin, fool?

Since when are we talking about Christianity?

Neither are fetuses, but both facts should be irrelevant if one is "pro-life."

But of course "pro-life" is really just a euphemism for "anti-abortion."

Anti-choice is more accurate. People can be against abortion and for choice.

Animals are not human persons.

If your standard for moral consideration is liberal enough that it includes fetuses at every stage of development, then either it is hopelessly arbitrary (and therefore likely the result of prejudice, in one direction or another) or under it a wide range of animals are included as well as fetuses.

Come on, Gens, you haven't answered my question. Am I already a College Graduate? Is my soda can already a Bicycle handle?

Come on, Gens, you haven't answered my question. Am I already a College Graduate? Is my soda can already a Bicycle handle?

Assuming that you are in the state of becoming a college graduate, then any adverse action taken against you should be taken to be against what would have otherwise been a college graduate. If your soda can is in the process of becoming a bicycle handle, then to get rid of the soda can is to get rid of what otherwise would have been part of a bicycle handle.

Assuming that you are in the state of becoming a college graduate, then any adverse action taken against you should be taken to be against what would have otherwise been a college graduate. If your soda can is in the process of becoming a bicycle handle, then to get rid of the soda can is to get rid of what otherwise would have been part of a bicycle handle.

Right. And to abort a human fetus is to take an action against what (probably) would have otherwise become a human being.

So? This tells us nothing relevant about its moral status now.

If your standard for moral consideration is liberal enough that it includes fetuses at every stage of development, then either it is hopelessly arbitrary (and therefore likely the result of prejudice, in one direction or another) or under it a wide range of animals are included as well as fetuses.

A dog cannot be ought else but a dog. A cat cannot be else but a cat. A fetus at any stage of development, however, yes in the state of becoming a person.

You realize that Ad Verecundiam is only fallacious when the authority in question isn't actually authoritative in respect to the subject in question, yes?

The subject in question is personhood in the 21st century of fetuses.

The Greeks you referred to were not experts in personhood, not legally or any other way, and were ignorant of human biology, and do not exist here today to defend or agree with you.

You aren't even giving arguments for why they "would" disagree with me. Simply stating that they would, and then leaving that as your argument. It is fallacious and, more to the point, a dumbass maneuver.

Since when are we talking about Christianity?

Since when are we talking about Greek philosophy?

which do you save?

In all the times you and Arthais have posted this, has anyone ever seriously answered the question?

Right. And to abort a human fetus is to take an action against what (probably) would have otherwise become a human being.

And this at any rate is murder.

Anti-choice is more accurate. People can be against abortion and for choice.

Or pro-ban. Makes it absolutely clear that what they are seeking is to ban abortion. That way, those of us who are anti-abortion but not in favor of a ban don't get mixed up with the other crowd.


Assuming that you are in the state of becoming a college graduate, then any adverse action taken against you should be taken to be against what would have otherwise been a college graduate. If your soda can is in the process of becoming a bicycle handle, then to get rid of the soda can is to get rid of what otherwise would have been part of a bicycle handle.

Cool! So no one should be denying me social security benefits. Denying me said benefits is exactly like denying them to a person who actually is old enough to receive them.

The subject in question is personhood in the 21st century of fetuses.

Is personhood in the case of 21st century any different than personhood in the 4th century bc? I assuredly think not.

The Greeks you referred to were not experts in personhood, not legally or any other way, and were ignorant of human biology, and do not exist here today to defend or agree with you.

Biology is irrelevent in terms of what I am talking about, except to show that the fetus is, in fact, in the process of becoming a man.

You aren't even giving arguments for why they "would" disagree with me. Simply stating that they would, and then leaving that as your argument. It is fallacious and, more to the point, a dumbass maneuver.

Already adressed, man.

Since when are we talking about Greek philosophy?

Since I brought it up. However, I fail to see what Christianity has to do with Aristotle.

which is to say, that it is does not appear to be a human person, but rather merely a bundle of cells.

You do realise that is what it is, right? A bundle of cells?

And this at any rate is murder.

How many times do people need to correct this? No, no it's not murder. It's not unlawful, and that alone is enough.

But I get it. You just love your emotive-based arguments. "Wah! It's a holocaust!" Or "Aagh! It's murder!"

Go cry, emo kid.

A fetus at any stage of development, however, yes in the state of becoming a person.

So?

And this at any rate is murder.

No.

Killing an actual person is murder (in most circumstances, anyway.)

Killing a potential future person is just killing a potential future person.

Cool! So no one should be denying me social security benefits. Denying me said benefits is exactly like denying them to a person who actually is old enough to receive them.

For the record, the above argument only applies to things for which there is an emmanent form. Which is to say, there is no emmanent form of old age. There are emmanent forms only of objects. Age is not an object. Age is an expression of the heraclitean flux, and so matters only in terms of material concern, not in terms of moral concern.

How many times do people need to correct this? No, no it's not murder. It's not unlawful, and that alone is enough.

It's against the natural law.

For the record, the above argument only applies to things for which there is an emmanent form. Which is to say, there is no emmanent form of old age. There are emmanent forms only of objects. Age is not an object. Age is an expression of the heraclitean flux, and so matters only in terms of material concern, not in terms of moral concern.

Ah, useless philosophical semantics BS that allows you to get out of the logical consequences of the crap you're spewing. Fun!

Is personhood in the case of 21st century any different than personhood in the 4th century bc?

Of course. Just as for example, citizenship is different.

I assuredly think not.

You think wrong.

Biology is irrelevent in terms of what I am talking about, except to show that the fetus is, in fact, in the process of becoming a man.

"becoming" =/= "is"

But OK, we can play that game.

1. Men are all in the process of becoming corpses
2. Corpses, being already dead, cannot be murdered nor can they be considered an "innocent life" that needs saving.
3. Since fetuses are becoming men, that means they are also already men.
4. Thus, fetuses are also already corpses, and cannot be murdered nor can be considered an innocent life.

Therefore abortion is not murder, nor is even the killing of a thing.

It's against the natural law.

Oh no! It goes against an insanely irrational, allegedly nature based ethical system made 700 years ago where understanding of nature was ultimately flawed.

:rolleyes:

Look, here's the point I'm ultimately making. You are all basing your understanding of morality on empirical observation, which necessarily can only inform us about the material world. The material however, is completely detatched from what should be our moral understandings.

Empirically, a fetus may appear different than an adult. They are, however, possessing of the same Form, and so are morally exactly the same.

It's against the natural law.

There is no natural law to be against. Law is purely a construct of human societies. Abortion isn't murder, care to try again or do you want to just ignore this little incident?

1. Men are all in the process of becoming corpses

Yet, the Form of man is not a corpse, but rather the man at his prime.

not in terms of moral concern.

So what matters in terms of moral concern? Specifically?

Why should we care about the "emmanent form" of humanity?

but rather the man at his prime.

Demonstrate this.

Yet, the Form of man is not a corpse, but rather the man at his prime.

Irrelevant. Your own logic states that if X is "becoming" Y, then X = Y. That doesn't change just because you idealize men at their prime.

Which is pretty sexy of you, by the way.

There is no natural law to be against. Law is purely a construct of human societies. Abortion isn't murder, care to try again or do you want to just ignore this little incident?

You really can't prove that, and I think this is ultimately where we disagree. I uphold the Greek philosophy. I uphold the natural law, and Plato's epistemology, and the Platonic-Aristotelian cosmology. If you uphold these things, you cannot possibly support abortion, and you must condemn it as murder.

You uphold a post enlightenment philosophy, and are ultimately a relativist and a sophist.

You cannot prove the first principles of your own philosophy, any more than I can prove my own first principles, since, as the Cynics point out, for either one of us, there would ultimately be a proof ad infinitum.

So, ultimately, we must agree to disagree.

You must admit, however, that it is not by religion alone to which one can arrive to the conclusion that abortion is evil, and that your view is not the only one acceptable in the case of secular law.

Out of curiosity, what is "emmanent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emmanent)"?

Eminent? Immanent?

Look, here's the point I'm ultimately making. You are all basing your understanding of morality on empirical observation, which necessarily can only inform us about the material world. The material however, is completely detatched from what should be our moral understandings.

Empirically, a fetus may appear different than an adult. They are, however, possessing of the same Form, and so are morally exactly the same.

Rather like natural law. So do you not even agree with your own ethical beliefs?

You really can't prove that, and I think this is ultimately where we disagree.

I don't have the disprove the existence of "natural law." You have to prove it.

I uphold the Greek philosophy. I uphold the natural law, and Plato's epistemology, and the Platonic-Aristotelian cosmology. If you uphold these things, you cannot possibly support abortion, and you must condemn it as murder.

I doubt this very much. What you are saying is that anyone who believes Greek philosophy is a rabid "abortion is murder" fundamentalist.. and you can't prove that.

You uphold a post enlightenment philosophy, and are ultimately a relativist and a sophist.

You uphold a philosophy of trolling, of debating by ignorance, and are ultimately a troll.


So, ultimately, we must agree to disagree.

That would certainly be easier for you than accepting you are wrong on any issue.

Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates would disagree.

Hold on. I want to see how exactly you have managed to twist these peoples' words so they would match your anti-abortion sentiments. Show me where Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates say that abortion is wrong.

A Greek philosopher known for his development of a concept of flux long before it was known in scientific terms.

Oh. Interesting. Thank you.
My friend, I am not preaching Christian values. I am preaching the philosophical doctrines of those who never even heard of Christ, yet arrived to the same conclusions by virtue of reason alone. Reject the Scriptures if you want, but you cannot merely brush away what the Greeks arrived at sheerly by human reason.
Irrelevant.

As you said, we cannot fully trust our own perceptions. We need others to investigate our own findings just as much as we investigate theirs. We need to make sure that we're not going down the wrong path.

Socrates, Plato, and the other Greek philosophers did not have the scientific knowledge we have today nor did they have one twentieth of the tools we have. Essentially their philosophies were glorified hypothesis's with no experimentation to test them. With our knowledge today, we know that what they speculated on is, for the most part, bunk.

We don't know if a soul exists, though the simple fact that we've never measured a single shred of odd energy exiting any perishing body--as a soul would do--is rather telling, but odds are, if there are souls, they are a reflection of a born human being, one who is able to think and reason, one who is alive.

The clump of cells that is a foetus in the first and second trimester is not capable of thinking. It does not have a brain nor does it have thoughts. I am against legalizing abortions--except, of course, in case of the health of the mother--once the foetus has started to show brainwaves and evidence of thought, however infantile. (Mainly because by that point if the woman is going to abort she would have already. On that same token, I also recognize that I am not going to be making the laws and therefore if women decide they want legal abortions after that point, that's their choice, not mine.) But I am not against any method of abortion so long as it is safe for the mother.

That means partial-birth abortions are fine with me, as are any other method that does not threaten the life of the mother. The life of the mother is paramount over any potential life, because she already exists. She already has a soul, if one exists. She is already here and alive, and it is her right to choose what she does with her own body, and that includes abortion.

Under no circumstances do you have a right to push any form of belief upon her, and you need to understand that, Gens.,

Out of curiosity, what is "emmanent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emmanent)"?

Eminent? Immanent?

Immanent. (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ar/Aristotl.html) Mea Culpa.

and are ultimately a relativist

The irony is acute.

Oh. Interesting. Thank you.

Irrelevant.

As you said, we cannot fully trust our own perceptions. We need others to investigate our own findings just as much as we investigate theirs. We need to make sure that we're not going down the wrong path.

Socrates, Plato, and the other Greek philosophers did not have the scientific knowledge we have today nor did they have one twentieth of the tools we have. Essentially their philosophies were glorified hypothesis's with no experimentation to test them. With our knowledge today, we know that what they speculated on is, for the most part, bunk.

Comrade, this is entirely irrelevent. The Greeks ultimately based their understanding on a priori knowledge rather than a posteriori knowledge, so your appeal to their lack of scientific knowledge is ultimately moot.

I don't have the disprove the existence of "natural law." You have to prove it.

Feel free to sift through the Platonic Dialogues.

Hold on. I want to see how exactly you have managed to twist these peoples' words so they would match your anti-abortion sentiments. Show me where Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates say that abortion is wrong.

From the link I gave earlier:

Aristotle believed that form caused matter to move and defined motion as the process by which the potentiality of matter (the thing itself) became the actuality of form (motion itself).

Comrade, this is entirely irrelevent. The Greeks ultimately based their understanding on a priori knowledge rather than a posteriori knowledge, so your appeal to their lack of scientific knowledge is ultimately moot.

Erm what? There is no one greek school of thought. The beliefs of Plato are completely different to that of Aristotle. Aristotles arguments were certainly a posteriori, not a priori.

Feel free to sift through the Platonic Dialogues.

Feel free to make your own arguments, or at least cite specific cases where your lauded Greek philosophers directly support your opinion. This constant "oh Greeks would disagree with you" or "read some Greek philosophy" nonsense does not qualify as proof, argument or anything other than annoying tripe. The kind of annoying tripe I've come to expect from egotistical kids who've taken a philosophy class and consider themselves wise men, but who can't argue worth a shit.

Erm what? There is no one greek school of thought. The beliefs of Plato are completely different to that of Aristotle. Aristotles arguments were certainly a posteriori, not a priori.

Indeed. And since Aristotle is considered the father of science...

Erm what? There is no one greek school of thought. The beliefs of Plato are completely different to that of Aristotle. Aristotles arguments were certainly a posteriori, not a priori.

Gens reminds me of the bullshit artists who hung out in the philosophy department.

Erm what? There is no one greek school of thought. The beliefs of Plato are completely different to that of Aristotle. Aristotles arguments were certainly a posteriori, not a priori.

I disagree that Plato's doctrines were radically different from Aristotle's. Aristotle was, after all, a student of Plato, and so while they, to a degree, stressed different things in their respective philosophies, they ultimately upheld (generally speaking) the same cosmology.

Feel free to sift through the Platonic Dialogues.

"I don't really understand what I'm talking about... so instead of actually presenting an argument, I'll make you do all the work."

:rolleyes:

Feel free to sift through the Platonic Dialogues.

Why do you keep bringing up ancient greek beliefs. You should know that the Catholic Church bases its beliefs on Aquinas' natural law, its connection to greek "natural law" is so vague as to be rendered irellavent.

"I don't really understand what I'm talking about... so instead of actually presenting an argument, I'll make you do all the work."

:rolleyes:

Fun!

Comrade, this is entirely irrelevent. The Greeks ultimately based their understanding on a priori knowledge rather than a posteriori knowledge, so your appeal to their lack of scientific knowledge is ultimately moot.

Really? I disagree.

They philosophised based on what they knew at the time. They drew from their knowledge, from their understanding of the world, which was much more limited than our own. They speculated on any number of horribly incorrect medical issues, for instance.

With our knoweldge today, we can proclaim them as incorrect. They are not still true despite new knowledge, new understanding. You cannot just take a premise and run with it against all evidence to the contrary. You have to change and adapt, and allow your thinking processes to accompany new information.

Think about it this way: if suddenly all gasoline were to disappear, would you continue to try to use your car to go to the grocery store? Would you continue to try to find food there, despite the fact that the lack of gasoline means no food can be delivered? Would you continue to presume that food MUST be there despite all evidence to the contrary?

Okay, it's probably not the best analogy, but you're basically doing the same thing here. You're taking an assumption made by people thousands of years ago and holding onto it even when we KNOW THEY ARE WRONG.

From the link I gave earlier:

"Aristotle believed that form caused matter to move and defined motion as the process by which the potentiality of matter (the thing itself) became the actuality of form (motion itself)."



That has nothing to do with abortion, or whether it is right or wrong. In fact, that has little to nothing to do with fetuses and people. You are talking the hypothetical ramblings of an ancient philosopher, and twisting them to apply to your own beliefs.

Oh, and where do Plato and Socrates fit in?

Feel free to sift through the Platonic Dialogues.

After all those pages of philosophical yammering, I just have to say that all that means nothing.

I will grant you that a fetus is a person. Fine. If that person is in my body, it is my right to get that person out if I want. If that person dies when it leaves my body, that does not affect my right to do what I want with my body. Too bad. I don't care if the person inside me is George Bush, Rick Mercer, or even Jesus Christ Himself. If I want this person out, out he goes. If he dies, that's not necessarily my problem.

It's my body.

Really? I disagree.

They philosophised based on what they knew at the time. They drew from their knowledge, from their understanding of the world, which was much more limited than our own. They speculated on any number of horribly incorrect medical issues, for instance.

With our knoweldge today, we can proclaim them as incorrect. They are not still true despite new knowledge, new understanding. You cannot just take a premise and run with it against all evidence to the contrary. You have to change and adapt, and allow your thinking processes to accompany new information.

Sure, we can proclaim some of their empirical considerations as wrong. We cannot, however, proclaim their ontological, epistemological, and cosmological arguments (based primarily in dialectic, not empirical observation) as wrong.

As I said before, you are basing your objection on empiricism, not rationalism, which is ultimately what the Greeks upheld.

Assuming that you are in the state of becoming a college graduate, then any adverse action taken against you should be taken to be against what would have otherwise been a college graduate. If your soda can is in the process of becoming a bicycle handle, then to get rid of the soda can is to get rid of what otherwise would have been part of a bicycle handle.

Ah. So my employer should pay me like I am a college graduate, is what you're saying?

After all those pages of philosophical yammering, I just have to say that all that means nothing.

I will grant you that a fetus is a person. Fine. If that person is in my body, it is my right to get that person out if I want. If that person dies when it leaves my body, that does not affect my right to do what I want with my body. Too bad. I don't care if the person inside me is George Bush, Rick Mercer, or even Jesus Christ Himself. If I want this person out, out he goes. If he dies, that's not necessarily my problem.

It's my body.

Sure, it is your body, to a degree. The means by which you remove that person from your body, however, is intrinsically evil, and an ends cannot justify an intrinsically evil means. ;)

Ah. So my employer should pay me like I am a college graduate, is what you're saying?

I'd like to point out that college education doesn't have an immanent form, and so is irrelevent in Aristotelian philosophy.

Sure, we can proclaim some of their empirical considerations as wrong. We cannot, however, proclaim their ontological, epistemological, and cosmological arguments (based primarily in dialectic, not empirical observation) as wrong.

As I said before, you are basing your objection on empiricism, not rationalism, which is ultimately what the Greeks upheld.

Translation: "You're irrational. Therefore abortion is murder."

Ah. So my employer should pay me like I am a college graduate, is what you're saying?

No, I think Gens is trying to say that only college graduates possess anything more than spinal ganglia.

Somehow, I think he's intimating that he is more intelligent than you are - probably an insult.

Translation: "You're irrational. Therefore abortion is murder."

I am not saying that they are irrational. I will say that they are arational, insofar as rationalism is traditionally defined.

Either way, if you don't feel like viewing the Platonic dialogues, the natural law is fairly easily justified insofar as it relates to the Platonic cosmology.

Morality is positive rather than negative, assuming you accept the Platonic epistemology, and so there must be some objective definition between what is within the realm of the Good and what isn't.

I disagree that Plato's doctrines were radically different from Aristotle's. Aristotle was, after all, a student of Plato, and so while they, to a degree, stressed different things in their respective philosophies, they ultimately upheld (generally speaking) the same cosmology.

Well since Aristotle completely disregarded Plato's forms and other paranormal explanations, using a posteriori arguments to only allow for a prime mover in what is otherwise a fully material world devoid of any heavenly beings etc... I would say that he is different from Plato.

Morality is positive rather than negative, assuming you accept the Platonic epistemology, and so there must be some objective definition between what is within the realm of the Good and what isn't.

And therefore, abortion is immoral.

Wait... might you be missing a few steps there?

Well since Aristotle completely disregarded Plato's forms and other paranormal explanations, using a posteriori arguments to only allow for a prime mover in what is otherwise a fully material world devoid of any heavenly beings etc... I would say that he is different from Plato.

Plato did in fact not reject the forms. He merely refused to seperate them from the sense particulars in question.

Well since Aristotle completely disregarded Plato's forms and other paranormal explanations, using a posteriori arguments to only allow for a prime mover in what is otherwise a fully material world devoid of any heavenly beings etc... I would say that he is different from Plato.

Sit down, Bruce.

Sure, we can proclaim some of their empirical considerations as wrong. We cannot, however, proclaim their ontological, epistemological, and cosmological arguments (based primarily in dialectic, not empirical observation) as wrong.

As I said before, you are basing your objection on empiricism, not rationalism, which is ultimately what the Greeks upheld.
Wait a second...did you just say that empirical science is not rational?

I find myself wholly in disagreement there. It is irrational to blabber on about this and that and ignore new evidence to the contrary. They are, to put it simply, wrong. If they had the knowledge we have today, they would not have philosophized the way they did. They would have speculated differently, in a way more in tune with our current knowledge.

Sure, it is your body, to a degree. The means by which you remove that person from your body, however, is intrinsically evil, and an ends cannot justify an intrinsically evil means. ;)

Oh quit acting like an ass. Besides, the quote is more along the lines of "Utilize the best means to achieve the best ends" not the stupid "The ends justifies the means" abridgment which goes completely against the meaning of the original quote.

I'd like to point out that college education doesn't have an immanent form, and so is irrelevent in Aristotelian philosophy.

Well, immanently, I will graduate, and by your argument, even though I have not yet graduated, I should be treated like a graduate. No doubt that means I should be payed like a graduate.

Wait a second...did you just say that empirical science is not rational?

That's exactly what I am saying, and your continued objection to the same betrays your own misunderstanding of philosophy.

They are, to put it simply, wrong.

Prove there are no forms, and prove there is no Good, or else admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Plato did in fact not reject the forms. He merely refused to seperate them from the sense particulars in question.

Do you mean Aristotle?

Do you mean Aristotle?

Yes...Aristotle. Ugh, I got up too early today.

I am not saying that they are irrational. I will say that they are arational, insofar as rationalism is traditionally defined.

Mm. Of course. I apologize for misconstruing the exact nature of your ad hominem.

assuming you accept the Platonic epistemology

Oh, here's an error. You see, you must have forgotten you weren't still at your philosophy class. You're not, and no one here is impressed with your erudite affectations, nor are they relevant to the discussion. The only purposes they seem to have are 1) Increasing digression and, incidentally, attention you receive in this thread, and 2) Making yourself feel superior.

Yes...Aristotle. Ugh, I got up too early today.

Your post is making something large look small, to deny any seperate heavenly forms that can not be percieved by humans who are only imperfect copies of the forms, denies fundamental Platonic beliefs.

no one here is impressed with your erudite affectations

Not when he seems not to understand what he is talking about, anyway.

Prove there are no forms, and prove there is no Good, or else admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Prove there are, and prove there is.

Burden of proof, "comrade".

And therefore, abortion is immoral.

Wait... might you be missing a few steps there?

1. Collect Underpants
2. ?
3. Profit

Prove there are, and prove there is.

Burden of proof, "comrade".

My friend, the point is that he said that natural science has proven the contrary. He said that had they a different knowledge, they would not have posited them. I am waiting for proof.

Clearly, I can offer a proof for all of the above, as did Plato, and I can offer it in only a few steps.

1. Assume knowledge is defined as having a target and being infallible.
2. We can have knowledge.
3. All material things (defined by Aristotle) are in flux.
4. No material thing can be known.
5. There must be something that is not material, and is steadfast and unchanging. This we call the Good.

I am not saying that they are irrational. I will say that they are arational, insofar as rationalism is traditionally defined.

The adjective form of "rationalism" is "rationalist."

The noun form of "rational" is "reason" or "rationality", not "rationalism."

This we call the Good.

That part is pulled out of your ass. Who knows what the unchanging thing is?

What makes it "Good" and not "Purple" or "Chimney"?

The noun form of "rational" is "reason" or "rationality", not "rationalism."


Even then, reason is charactarized by deductive processes.

My friend, the point is that he said that natural science has proven the contrary. He said that had they a different knowledge, they would not have posited them. I am waiting for proof.

Clearly, I can offer a proof for all of the above, as did Plato, and I can offer it in only a few steps.

1. Assume knowledge is defined as having a target and being infallible.
2. We can have knowledge.
3. All material things (defined by Aristotle) are in flux.
4. No material thing can be known.
5. There must be something that is not material, and is steadfast and unchanging. This we call the Good.

Lets assume that this semantic nonsense does prove that there is an objective good. So what? That doesn't give you any more reason to believe in any specific imperatives such as "abortion should not take place", no amount of a priori or a posteriori reasoning can show this to be true.

That's exactly what I am saying, and your continued objection to the same betrays your own misunderstanding of philosophy.

Then you are, good sir, an idiot. Philosophy is irrational hypothesizing, whereas empirical science is rational.


Prove there are no forms, and prove there is no Good, or else admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Forms? What exactly do you mean? Define your terms please.

As for Good? Easy!

We have a perspective that comes from our instincts and how we have evolved. Our survival and tribalistic instincts are what cause us to be greedy, or lustful. Why share resources with another group when you can hoard them and ensure your genes are passed on? Why not impregnate as many mates as you can, again so your genes can live on?

That's the basic reasoning, in essence, behind most survival instincts. Morality, guilt, and the like are as well instincts that arose from a need to keep the species preserved. Because as we evolved our intelligence, we lost most of our defensive capabilities and thus need each other to survive, hence why we feel guilt when we kill another human, because that means one less person who could help keep the species survive.

That's why we're tribalistic, and that's also why we're xenophobic. As much as we require each other to survive, so too are we driven by the basic needs to keep OUR genes passed on. We form groups. We form nations, cities, towns, and what have you, and we tend to distrust anyone not of that group.

THEREFORE!

Good and Evil are both matters of perspective, created purely from our own instincts and attempts to explain things we could not understand at the time.

2. We can have knowledge.

Justify that.

Then you are, good sir, an idiot. Philosophy is irrational hypothesizing, whereas empirical science is rational.

I have to disagree with this, empirical science is a branch of philisophy.

I have to disagree with this, empirical science is a branch of philisophy.

It's the less bullshit, more substance branch.

Even then, reason is charactarized by deductive processes.

"All cats are black."

"But wait! Look, a green cat!"

"Oh, I guess that all cats aren't black after all."

My friend, the point is that he said that natural science has proven the contrary. He said that had they a different knowledge, they would not have posited them. I am waiting for proof.

Clearly, I can offer a proof for all of the above, as did Plato, and I can offer it in only a few steps.

1. Assume knowledge is defined as having a target and being infallible.
2. We can have knowledge.
3. All material things (defined by Aristotle) are in flux.
4. No material thing can be known.
5. There must be something that is not material, and is steadfast and unchanging. This we call Evil.

Fixed.

Philosophy is irrational hypothesizing

Only in the hands of the wrong people.

created purely

You have not demonstrated this.

You have provided one explanation for morality. You have not shown that it is the only one.

GENS ROMAE

So generally speaking, I'm really not sure what I think about the death penalty. However, I will be the first to say that I don't advocate aggressive war, especially in light of the Church's teaching on the Just War.

Okay then. At least your views are consistent.

An egg isn't a chicken...unless it's been fertilized, at which point it is in the state of becoming a chicken, and so should be treated as a chicken. I'd say the same about aluminum ore in a factory.

So I can put soda in a block of barely-processed ore and make Chicken Alfredo with a fertilized egg? Interesting...



A tumor cannot be anything else but a tumor. A parasite can be nothing else but a parasite. A fetus, however, is in the process of becoming a man.

1) More likely female.
2) It has the possibility of becoming a baby, a lot of fetuses never make it.
3) It has the possibility of becoming a baby

Now that I'm done w/ technical corrections:

Becoming =/= Being.

I quote Fr. Corappi: If you take all the Hitlers, all the Stalins, all the Sadaam Housseins in the world, you still won't have reached the horror that is abortion.

Somehow I doubt those who were oppressed would agree.

1. Assume knowledge is defined as having a target and being infallible.

Well gee, didn't have to go beyond the first point to find the flaw in your argument. knowledge is neither targeted nor infallible.

I have to disagree with this, empirical science is a branch of philisophy.

Well, I suppose. It certainly emerged out of philosophy.

I suppose I should have clarified my meaning as "the Greek philosophies are irrational hypothesis's."

Soheran: Where else would it have come from? It's an instinct. What we choose to do with it through our sentience does not render the truth of how it came about irrelevant!

I suppose I should have clarified my meaning as "the Greek philosophies are irrational hypothesis's."


I disagree with this as well. Much of Aristotle's reasoning is still used today in science.


Soheran: Where else would it have come from?

Reason for one example.

Problem is you have religious and social conservatives in charge of the republican party which is supposed to be about restricting government. They've hijacked it into the big government party.

Sadly true.

The thing is that they are still for a smaller government than the Dems will offer so I don't have a choice.

"You are talking the hypothetical ramblings of an ancient philosopher, and twisting them to apply to your own beliefs."

This appears to hold true. Gens Romae figures that by spewing out philosophical nonsense and silly theories that died out thousands of years ago for a good reason, he can confuse people into beliving that the ancient Greeks somehow cared about his anti-abortion sentiments.

Sorry Gens Romae, but doing this only works up until about junior high school. Then people start calling you on your bluffs.

Soheran: Where else would it have come from?

According to Gens Romae, from "the Good."

Pointing out that certain kinds of altruistic instincts are natural does not prove this notion wrong... nor does it prove wrong any other (and possibly better) notions arguing that morality is more than a matter of natural instinct.

What we choose to do with it through our sentience does not render the truth of how it came about irrelevant!

No, but you have not demonstrated that your idea of the "truth of how it came about" is in fact true.

According to Gens Romae, from "the Good."

Pointing out that certain kinds of altruistic instincts are natural does not prove this notion wrong... nor does it prove wrong any other (and possibly better) notions arguing that morality is more than a matter of natural instinct.



No, but you have not demonstrated that your idea of the "truth of how it came about" is in fact true.

Well, you've got a point there. I'm hardly quoting sources anymore than Gens Romae is. Actually, if anything, he has me beat there because he's at least bothered to link to sources.

So I'll stop now, since I don't exactly have any sources at my fingertips and I'm not interested enough in the debate to go find some.

I'm hardly quoting sources anymore than Gens Romae is.

You don't need to quote sources. You need to provide arguments.

In all the times you and Arthais have posted this, has anyone ever seriously answered the question?

not that i've ever seen. an interesting fact in its own right.

You don't need to quote sources. You need to provide arguments.

...

I thought that's what I was doing.

I thought that's what I was doing.

It is. But your arguments did not demonstrate your conclusion.

The fact that natural instinct can explain certain sentiments that could reasonably be called moral does not mean that morality is necessarily "purely" a product of natural instinct.

Of course, the burden of proof was really on Gens Romae... not you.

not that i've ever seen. an interesting fact in its own right.

If the kid was female, you could argue that by saving the kid, and her unused ova, you are saving more lives than the two blastocysts. Assuming the definition of personhood can be stretched that far.

Please note: I don't believe in the personhood of a fetus, nor do I care about this argument enough to defend it. I was just trying to think of a possible out for someone like Gens Romae.

It is. But your arguments did not demonstrate your conclusion.

The fact that natural instinct can explain certain sentiments that could reasonably be called moral does not mean that morality is necessarily "purely" a product of natural instinct.

Of course, the burden of proof was really on Gens Romae... not you.

Oh, so that's what I was doing wrong. Got it. Thanks for letting me know that.

Still, I think I'll hang back and watch you guys finish him off. He seems almost on the run already anyway.

I agree, this is bullshit. They should have just made abortion IN GENERAL illegal. They should make abortion a capital offense, and not only that, but increase funding for alternatives such as adoption.

So you would execute a woman who has aborted her fetus? Or were you talking about executing the doctor instead; after all, the woman must have just gone in for a routine checkup on the baby she loved, found herself in some stirrups, and before she knew what was happening the vacuums came out.

Seriously, think things through before you sound like a paternalistic ass. Women sometimes, just sometimes have abortions because they are capable of making informed decisions, just like other members of genus Homo species Sapiens. Shocking, I know, but it's true. And if women actually choose to commit this crime, it should be they who are punished. So what you are suggesting is that a woman who has an abortion ought to be put to death. Hmm. You wait here for a minute; I'll go see if I can find my copy of the "Taliban Man of the Year" nomination form.

a scenario for you:

suppose you found yourself in this situation. you are in a fertility clinic for some reason. in this fertility clinic there is a petri dish on the table, a petri dish which you know has two blastocysts on it, ready to be implanted. also in the room is a 5 year old child. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one of the two - petri dish or kindergartener. which do you save?



In all the times you and Arthais have posted this, has anyone ever seriously answered the question?


In the situation posited, one should, of course, save the kindergartener. Even so, I feel that I have to note that the average human uterus is not normally occupied by petri dishes and kindergarteners while on fire. Thus, it seems to me that the (edit: situation posited) is trying to be something that it is not.

At any rate, I regularly choose the "only in case of rape or medical emergency" option when the relevant NationStates issue pops up.

I'm actually have trouble describing why I generally oppose the practice in question, or at least why I disagree with most of the justifications I've heard. I suppose it has simply struck me as odd that something which is a natural state, or part of the process of, human reproduction and development can be declared "not human." Of course, human society has a long history of declaring various classes as "not human" with obviously unpleasant results. I suppose that is what is rubbing me the wrong way.

At any rate, I've also been trying to form The Loyal Opposition in such a way so as the socioeconomic situation will make the practice I find objectionable unnecessary to begin with. I suppose that, ultimately, that is the best that I can do.

Unless I'm just some religious nut who hates women.

Look at it this way, if you're too stupid to use a condom, you should probably have an abortion. Gods know you don't need to be breeding.

In the situation posited, one should, of course, save the kindergartener. Even so, I feel that I have to note that the average human uterus is not normally occupied by petri dishes and kindergarteners while on fire. Thus, it seems to me that the metaphor is trying to be something that it is not.

it's not a metaphor

it's not a metaphor

Whatever it is, that's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12954995&postcount=162) my answer.

EDIT: There, all fixed.

Kat, there is a fiscally conservative party that has been gaining a fair amount of momentum in recent years, which is to say, the Libertarian party. The point is that, however, the same people who desire fiscal conservativism are the same people who believe in good family values...such as not murdering pre born children.
Yup, that Libertarian Party of yours is just gaining momentum by leaps and bounds. :rolleyes:

2004 Presidential Election:

Michael Badnarik Libertarian Texas 397,265 0.3%

2000 Presidential Election:

Harry Browne Libertarian Tennessee 384,516 0.4%

1996 Presidential Election:

Harry Browne Libertarian Tennessee 485,798 0.5%

It would appear that they are losing ground in trying to win the hearts and minds of the American public? Thank God!! :D

Whatever it is, that's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12954995&postcount=162) my answer.

EDIT: There, all fixed.

well, your answer is the obvious one, but it carries certain very important consequences.

i'm not sure you see what the scenario is actually doing, as it very precisely does the job i intend it to do.

well, your answer is the obvious one, but it carries certain very important consequences.

i'm not sure you see what the scenario is actually doing, as it very precisely does the job i intend it to do.

Maybe you need to pair it when you bring it up.

The paired scenario would be:

There are three 5 year olds in a clinic. Two are off to one side and one is standing by himself. You can either save the one, or you can save both of the others. You cannot save both. What do you do?

Most people will choose to save two, rather than only saving one. And it is in that comparison that your point is obvious, as they choose to save only the one if that one happens to be already born.

i'm not sure you see what the scenario is actually doing, as it very precisely does the job i intend it to do.


It demonstrates that emergency situations require certain kinds of decisive action. What this has to do with a uterus that isn't "burning," however, I'm not entirely sure.

EDIT: for the moment, I don't intend to defend any one position or another. I just want to understand your point.

Because there are so many kids in foster homes and orphanages that have already been adopted?

When people who say this are willing to adopt the unwanted children languishing in the system, I will be all for it. As long as there are kids who are thrown out on the street at 18 after they age out from these institutions -- sorry, I will not support the emotional and physical abuse of which they are victims.

my friends are trying to adopt a foster child.......they are 3 years into the 5 year process, they have had random house inspections for all 3 years, have had to produce lists of where they spend all their money and all of their friends and family have been interviewed, even after the 5 year process of getting approved they will be on a waiting list for up to a year for a child........and they don't even want a baby, it's longer if you want a kid under 4.

Maybe there are so many kids needing homes because of all the brainless laws surrounding adoption.

It demonstrates that emergency situations require certain kinds of decisive action. What this has to do with a uterus that isn't "burning," however, I'm not entirely sure.

EDIT: for the moment, I don't intend to defend any one position or another. I just want to understand your point.

my point is that you - and everyone else i've ever come across that will actually answer the question - quickly and decisively make the decision to save the kindergartener rather than the two blastocysts. there isn't even a question about it, no agonizing moral calculation. this is because nobody accepts the premise that blastocysts have equal moral worth with actual people.

in fact, the first version of the scenario shows that they clearly have less than half of said worth, otherwise the petri dish vs child decision would be complicated. but i can then further modify the scenario. for example, since blastocysts are so small, i can place an arbitrarily large number of them on a stack of petri dishes. but no matter how many blastocysts are there to be saved (and no matter how much easier i make it to save them rather than the 5 year old), everyone understands that saving the child is the morally correct thing to do, and saving the petri dishes while letting the child burn will not only fail to get you moral praise, but will have you loudly condemned as a monster.

Yes... which is why I wonder there hasn't been a movement to split off into a truly fiscally conservative party and leave this big government behind.

Because then they would lose.

not that i've ever seen. an interesting fact in its own right.
Indeed. I really would like to see an anti-choicer answer this question, and attempt to reconcile their probable answer with their position.


It demonstrates that emergency situations require certain kinds of decisive action. What this has to do with a uterus that isn't "burning," however, I'm not entirely sure.


The point is, by saving the one child, you demonstrate that you do not really believe that the blastocysts are fully human, equal in value to a born child-- anybody who truly believes that would be forced to save the two and let the one die, or have an inconsistent stance.

Hell, I've heard the scenario repeated with a freezer full of several hundred fetuses. And still, almost everybody would choose to save the born child. (except the anti-choice crowd. They never give an opinion one way or the other, and instead pretend they didn't notice the question.)

...this is because nobody accepts the premise that blastocysts have equal moral worth with actual people.


The hypothetical situation doesn't have to be seen in terms of "equal moral worth," but simply in terms of how many I can save in the very limited time I have to act.

This is why I think your hypothetical situation, as stated, is flawed. I could have answered that I would simply take an extra second to slip the petri dish into my pocket and then rescue the kindergartener as well, producing the best outcome for the amount of time that I have. I save three entities instead of only one. I failed to produce this answer because I obviously fell for the built in trick, that I can only save one or the other ("which do you save?"). A very powerful, if subtle, bit of rhetorical engineering. This engineering is the life force of the "hypothetical," anyway.

But even while allowing this carefully planted bit of engineering, why choose the kindergartener over the two blastocysts? Because in the couple of seconds I have to make a decision, I simply decided that the kindergartener has a greater chance of survival. Given the environmental conditions found inside a burning building, and the lack of the necessary conditions that I assume are needed to maintain the blastocysts outside of the destroyed clinic, the kindergartener is most likely to survive. "Moral worth" doesn't have so much to do with it as does my simple desire to make the best decision I can among what is otherwise a really crappy set of choices (one or some of the entities must die).

This is similar to the necessity of terminating a pregnancy in the event of ectopic pregnancy or other emergency. This necessity doesn't exist because the fetus has less "moral worth" than the mother, but simply because it is crazy to lose two when we need only lose one. With either choice, the odds of the fetus surviving are extremely low if not zero. The mother, however, has better odds if the appropriate action is taken.

I consider both to have equal moral worth, I can just recognize the inherent insanity in allowing inaction to cause more death than is actually necessary.

The point is, by saving the one child, you demonstrate that you do not really believe that the blastocysts are fully human, equal in value to a born child--

Or I demonstrate that I made a decision according to parameters that you did not anticipate, when you should have.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12955193&postcount=174

The murder of an innocent child has nothing to do with a woman's sexual freedom, even if a woman's sexual freedom were to be taken into consideration.

And if we were discussing the murder of an innocent child instead of the abortion of a fetus you would have a point.

Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates would disagree.

Didn't they also fuck young boys and think that maggots were spontaneously generated by rotting meat?

If we hold the following to be true:

Abortion is wrong because a potential life is the same as an actual life.

Then we run into the following problem . . .

The argument is based on the idea that the potential is the same as the actual. All fetuses are potential children, all children are potential serial killers. Therefore aborting a fetus is the same as the heroic act of stopping a serial killer. Therefore all abortionists and women who have an abortion deserve medals.

If we hold the following to be true:

Abortion is wrong because a potential life is the same as an actual life.

Then we run into the following problem . . .

The argument is based on the idea that the potential is the same as the actual. All fetuses are potential children, all children are potential serial killers. Therefore aborting a fetus is the same as the heroic act of stopping a serial killer. Therefore all abortionists and women who have an abortion deserve medals.

All three year olds should be allowed to smoke, drink alcohol and watch pornography because they're potentially twenty one year olds.

Gens Romae: Cut and Runner

Biology is irrelevent in terms of what I am talking about, except to show that the fetus is, in fact, in the process of becoming a man.
Actually, if you go by odds, it's in the process of becoming a reddish smudge.

Gens reminds me of the bullshit artists who hung out in the philosophy department.

Redundancy much?

The point I was making, dear Kitty, is that you say that it is merely a bundle of cells.

As a bundle of cells myself, I am offended by the word merely.

Since Free Soviets brought it up, I have to go look up my own hypothetical, which he has already talked about. As he said, to date, nobody has ever given a full answer to this:

no, not even the "no abortions, no in vetro firtilization, no planned killing of an embryo EVER" people do not really, TRULY believe that an embryo is a human being. The results, as I said, would make you a monster.

Imagine, you are walking late and night and you come across a fertility clinic ablaze. You being the brave soul you are, rush in. FOrtunatly it is night time and the clinic is entirely empty, save for Bob, the Janitor. Bob is currently passed out near the door, and will likely die soon to the fire and smoke.

You think you can reach Bob, grab him, and make it to the front door, both alive. You are actually virtually positive, and believe that you would have a 80% chance of success at getting out alive the two of you. Unfortunatly that means you also have a 20% chance of dying.

You can also simply turn around and walk out, an activity that will with 100% certainty, spare your life. It will, unfortunatly, with equal 100% certainty, kill Bob the Janitor.

So you can run, and assure your survival, and bob will Perish. Or you can attempt a rescue, and risk the 20% chance that both of you will die.

But lo, what is this? You notice a cooler next to bob, with a sign that reads "one fertilized human embryo inside". Let's say, if you decided, you could grab the cooler and run. You'd make it out with 90% certainty. But if you attempt to rescue the cooler, and bob, all 3 of you will perish.

Now you have a third choice, save yourself with 100% certainty, save bob with 80% certainty, or save the cooler with 90% certainty.

Anyone on this board will give one of two answers, some will opt to attempt to save bob, and the more risk averse will chose their own life.

Nobody, ABSOLUTLY NOBODY will say "I will attempt to save the cooler". Nobody would. Either they'd risk their lives to save another living, breathing human being in Bob the janitor, or they would run, and assure their own life.

However, if you believed, if you TRULY BELIEVED that the fertilized egg sitting in that cooler was a human life, the same as you, and me, and bob, then you would be morally bound to rescue the cooler, and not bob. Anyone who actually, TRULY believed that this embryo was a life, would eitehr save themselves, or, given better odds, would save the cooler over bob. If you actually believed that the cooler contained human life you would chose to save the cooler and not bob, based purely on the odds.

Which is where the flaw comes, nobody would do it. They'd either save themselves, OR attempt a rescue of bob. Some would risk death to save another human being. Nobody, NOBODY would risk death to save a cooler. But for those who believe an embryo is human life, saving Bob and saving the embryo are one and the same, and one should save the cooler, not Bob, because the egg in the cooler is more likely to survive.

Now some would admit "ok, so maybe the embryo isn't FULLY human, but it's 'human like', somewhat 'fractional' human." So fine, let's change the hypothetical a bit. Let's So instead of one embryo in that cooler, instead the sticker read 2. Or 10. Or 10,000. Or a million. Or 10 million (embryo's are small, after all). But now it holds 10 million, so it has to be rather bigger. Now the odds of you getting out alive with that cooler are 80/20. Exactly the same odds as trying to rescue Bob the Janitor.

If that cooler contained 10 million tiny frozen embryos, then, according to the belief, that cooler contains TEN MILLION HUMAN LIVES. How many people here if given the answer would risk a 80/20 split on their own life if it meant saving TEN MILLION PEOPLE. How many people would take the bet on their life if success meant saving as many people as the holocaust killed?

Would anyone refuse, really? Would anyone here not be willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of death if success meant saving 10 MILLION lives? I'd take that bet, and I suspect most would too.

Would anyone risk their lives for that cooler? Would anyone forsake the unconcious bob for that cooler? According to the belief that cooler contains 10 MILLION human lives, ten million. To chose one, or two lives, over 10 million is barbaric, so the implication of that belief is that you MUST save the cooler.

Would anyone do it? Anyone? Would anyone risk the 20% chance of excuciating death and leave a helpless man to die for a cooler of frozen embryos? If you TRULY believed that an embryo is a human life, then that cooler contains TEN MILLION human lives. The result of that belief is that Bob the Janitor dies in that fire, because who among us would chose the life of one stranger, over the life of 10 million strangers? The belief that those embryos constitute 10 million human lives would compell you to leave Bob for death and save the cooler. And nobody, NOBODY would do it. As I said, the moral implications of such a stance would make you a monster.

And since not even the most die hard anti abortion fanatics would sacrifice bob to save one, or 10, or 10,000 or 10 million little tiny frozen embryos, the implication is they are not willing to lose one person to save 10 million. So either your belief turns you into a monster, or you don't REALLY believe it.

With all this talk about Plato and Aristotle, I thought I'd voice my opinion of them as an authority on morality. But since I'm not particularly eloquent, and I've been watching Cosmos recently, I will provide a rather long quotation from Carl Sagan.

[Plato] preferred the perfection of these mathematical abstractions to the imperfections of everyday life. He believed that ideas were far more real than the natural world. He advised the astronomers not to waste their time observing the stars and planets. It was better, he believed, just to think about them.

Plato expressed hostility to observation and experiment. He taught contempt for the real world, and disdain for the practical application of scientific knowledge. Plato's followers succeeded in extinguishing the light of science and experiment that had been kindled by Democritus and the other Ionians.

Plato's unease with the world as revealed by our senses was to dominate and stifle western philosophy. Even as late as 1600, Johannes Kepler was still struggling to interpret the structure of the cosmos in terms of Pythagorean solids and Platonic perfection. Ironically, it was Kepler who helped reestablish the old Ionian method of testing ideas against observations. But why had science lost its way in the first place? What appeal could these teachings of Pythagoras and Plato have had for their contemporaries? They provided, I believe, an intellectually respectable justification for a corrupt social order.

The mercantile tradition which had led to Ionian science also led to a slave economy. You could get richer if you owned a lot of slaves. Athens, in the time of Plato and Aristotle, had a vast slave population. All of that brave Athenian talk about democracy applied only to a privileged few.

Plato and Aristotle were comfortable in a slave society. They offered justifications for oppression. They served tyrants; they taught the alienation of the body from the mind, a natural enough idea, I suppose, in a slave society. They separated thought from matter; they divorced the earth from the heavens. Divisions which were to dominate western thinking for more than twenty centuries. The Pythagoreans had won.

In the recognition by Pythagoras and Plato that the cosmos is knowable, that there is a mathematical underpinning to nature, they greatly advanced the cause of science. But in the supression of disquieting facts, the sense that science should be kept for a small elite, the distaste for experiment, the embrace of mysticism, and the easy acceptance of slave societies, their influence has significantly set back the human endeavor.

In the situation posited, one should, of course, save the kindergartener.

The "of course" here interests me.

Perhaps there are other, non-moral worth factors that might make you think you should save the five-year-old... but are they really so definitive that this answer is obvious?

I can think of a number of practical considerations on the basis of which I could go either way even under the assumption that five-year-old and blastocyst are of equal moral worth... but because the exact circumstances aren't spelled out in the hypothetical, and because different considerations lead in different directions, there is no "of course."

The only reason it is obvious to me that saving the five-year-old is the better choice is that the moral status of blastocysts is not even remotely comparable to that of five-year-olds... and I have trouble seeing how this choice could be obvious to anyone else upon a different basis.

Screw bob, I'd save the little tiny lives. Then I'd forcibly have them implanted into the wombs of unsuspecting women. Perhaps while they were sleeping. I'm sure bob would want that.

Screw bob, I'd save the little tiny lives. Then I'd forcibly have them implanted into the wombs of unsuspecting women. Perhaps while they were sleeping. I'm sure bob would want that.

and really, bob's wishes are what matter here

But even while allowing this carefully planted bit of engineering, why choose the kindergartener over the two blastocysts? Because in the couple of seconds I have to make a decision, I simply decided that the kindergartener has a greater chance of survival. Given the environmental conditions found inside a burning building, and the lack of the necessary conditions that I assume are needed to maintain the blastocysts outside of the destroyed clinic, the kindergartener is most likely to survive.

ok fine. the blastocysts will have as excellent a chance of living as any, and you have knowledge of this fact (that's what's great about hypotheticals). and just to round things out odds-wise, there are 10 of them ready for easy grabbing. are you seriously going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that your going after the petri dish?

i'm also interested in the fact that you said "of course" when choosing the kindergartener the first time around. the of course seems to be in direct conflict to your answer here that you were making a terrible choice in a sort of triage system, but you really wish you could have saved the two rather than the one.

ok fine. the blastocysts will have as excellent a chance of living as any, and you have knowledge of this fact (that's what's great about hypotheticals). and just to round things out odds-wise, there are 10 of them ready for easy grabbing. are you seriously going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that your going after the petri dish?

i'm also interested in the fact that you said "of course" when choosing the kindergartener the first time around. the of course seems to be in direct conflict to your answer here that you were making a terrible choice in a sort of triage system, but you really wish you could have saved the two rather than the one.

Ah see even those are concessions in my hypothetical I am not willing to make. If we go back to that cooler with 10 million embryos and say "ok, at least 10,000 of them will live and be birthed" then it becomes more difficult.

because frankly, the choice between saving bob the janitor and saving embryos that will, in the future, be 10,000 children becomes a bit harder. And it is not entirely unreasonable for someone to say they would save the cooler, and thus bring about 10,000 lives, in exchange for one life right now.

The embryos are not of NO value what so ever. To create another hypothetical if I made you choose between killing 10 sterile women, and 9 women all of which are 8 months pregnant, the choice may be difficult, and rightly so. There is some future value of those children, and even some pro choice people, who do not believe the fetus is a person, would still save 9 pregnant women over 10 sterile women, because the 9 pregnant women will, potentially in the future, equal 18 people.

And so in fact for some it might be perfectly valid to choose to save a cooler that WILL bring about 10,000 lives in exchange for the life of bod, the janitor. Which is why I leave any discussion of chance out of it. For those that argue "a fetus is human life!" it shouldn't matter at all. Each one of those 10 million little embryos is a human life. Not WILL be a human life. Not MIGHT be a human life. Not "we have to consider the odds". 10 million embryos is 10 million human lives RIGHT NOW. Which is the whole crux of this.

Any discussion about analysing what the embryos MIGHT be in the FUTURE means that you don't really, truly believe those 10 million frozen embryos are human beings. Because if you did really, TRULY believe those 10 million frozen embryos were true human being RIGHT NOW and not merely potential human beings then no man's life, not even our dear friend bob, is worth the sacrifice of 10 million lives

The murder of an innocent child has nothing to do with a woman's sexual freedom, even if a woman's sexual freedom were to be taken into consideration.
At least he's honest that women's sexual freedom shouldn't be taken into consideration.

Okay, let's just cut the bullshit.

If I become pregnant, I will abort the pregnancy. Flat out. Period. I will do it. I will do it whether it is legal or not. I will not continue a pregnancy to term inside my body.

So, how much time should I do?

Let's say I become pregnant tomorrow. I have just informed you that I will abort that pregnancy. That's premeditation, right? So I assume that all the anti-choicers out there will advocate that I receive a life sentence in prison, at the very least, right?

Even if I hadn't planned it ahead of time, that'd be second degree murder at the least. 15-25 years sound right?

1 in 3 American women will have an abortion at some point in her life.

How much time should she do?

Where do y'all plan to build all the prisons you're going to need?

Who do you propose to appoint to rear all the children who's mothers will be imprisoned? 60% of the women who have abortions already have at least one child, after all, and somebody's gonna have to take care of them.

What about the economic impact of losing one out of every three women in the country? Those women may not all work outside the home, but those that work at home are providing unpaid domestic labor that has to be done by somebody. Who's going to do it? How will they be paid?

All the bullshit about "innocent unborn" is just emotive crap used to distract everybody from the plain, simple truth: anti-choicers don't even believe their own crap. They haven't thought about it seriously at all. They just don't like girls getting to decide what happens in their own bodies (as if they had the right or something!) and they realized that using babies as a shield works out pretty nicely for them.

Anti-choice belief is cowardly, sloppy thinking. Want to prove me wrong? Then answer, simply and clearly, each of the questions I've posed. No bullshit squirming around. No making excuses and finding tiny exceptions and wiggle room. Face the consequences of your assertions head on, and address them like a grown up.

All the bullshit about "innocent unborn" is just emotive crap used to distract everybody from the plain, simple truth:

Ohhh Bottle you do sound riled up! Now I admit that I haven't read the proceding posts so I don't know which comment, or comments got to you so.

I would like to talk about this bit of your post, because I think it highlights an inconsistancy in the way that some pro choice advocates approach the subject.


Of course it's emotive, all parents are emotive about their children, and I for one would just not trust one that wasn't.

For the record I am pro choice, but I also find that I do not like the idea of abortion, and am glad it is not a choice that I will ever have to make.

What I see is that the crux of the row is about life. Is a featus alive, yep it is there can be no denying this. Is it human life? Well it is alive and it will develop into a human, so yes it is.

So then at what stage of this life should we get emotive about it? There is the real differance, you may want to belive it is all about the female and keeping her down, but seeing as that is certianly not the case with myself, I really can't belive that it is valid.

So then at what stage of this life should we get emotive about it? There is the real differance, you may want to belive it is all about the female and keeping her down, but seeing as that is certianly not the case with myself, I really can't belive that it is valid.

But... you're not anti-choice...

Ohhh Bottle you do sound riled up! Now I admit that I haven't read the proceding posts so I don't know which comment, or comments got to you so.

I'm not, actually. I'm just blunt. I've been over this topic so many times that I don't know if I actually can get riled up about it any more. Particularly not on NSG.

The funny thing is, even if I were "riled up" it would be totally irrelevant. That's the whole point of my post. Answer the issues, address the real, serious aspects of the topic, and quit using distracting tangents about emotional crap to cloud the issue.


I would like to talk about this bit of your post, because I think it highlights an inconsistancy in the way that some pro choice advocates approach the subject.

Of course it's emotive, all parents are emotive about their children, and I for one would just not trust one that wasn't.

For the record I am pro choice, but I also find that I do not like the idea of abortion, and am glad it is not a choice that I will ever have to make.

What I see is that the crux of the row is about life. Is a featus alive, yep it is there can be no denying this. Is it human life? Well it is alive and it will develop into a human, so yes it is.

Well, that's your problem, then.

The abortion debate has nothing to do about "human life" in the way you are talking about it.

I've been over this a million times before, but here it is again:

No born human person has the right to take my body, my organs, or my tissues against my will. No born human person has the right to use my body to sustain their own life against my wishes. Even if a fetus is to be considered a full human person, with all the rights enjoyed by born human people, there is still absolutely no reason why it should be given rights that no other human person has.

In short, it doesn't matter if a fetus is a human person or not. A female human being still has the absolute right to refuse to let her body be used as an incubator, at any time and for any reason.


So then at what stage of this life should we get emotive about it? There is the real differance, you may want to belive it is all about the female and keeping her down, but seeing as that is certianly not the case with myself, I really can't belive that it is valid.
You have completely missed my point.

I don't give a shit if people FEEL EMOTIONAL about this subject. What is bullshit is when people use emotion as a distraction, as a red herring, as a way of diverting attention from the fact that they have no sound arguments at all. They use the "poor innocent unborn" crap as a way to shift the discussion onto the poor widdle fetuses and isn't it sad about all the murdered bay-bees?

Kind of like what you're doing, really.

Feel emotional if you want. But answer the questions. Use your brain. Quit using emotive language to hide the fact that you haven't actually thought this through very well.

Okay just blunt, then my mistake. I clearly got your point, but it seems you have missed mine.

Let me reiterate then. Your point is that people use emotion, or get emotive, as a distraction from the main point, you say that such a techneiqe is indicitive of people who have not thought it out.

You say that:

'The abortion debate has nothing to do about "human life" in the way you are talking about it.'

I have to say yes it is. I say it is, I say that when I talk about this topic it is all about what you say it isn't. Now we can get past that and you can except my word, or you can tell me that I don't know my own mind?

Bearing this in mind, let me counter once again your point about 'emotive'

There are lots of definitions of life, and the one that makes most sense to me is: If it has an inside and an outside, that is if it has anykind of outer protection to it's inner gubbins(cell walls), and if it metabolises, and if it has processes for carrying on it's genetic makeup after it's demise, then it is life.

As you can see this is true from the single celled ameba, upthrough plants, into animals and inclusive of ourselves.

A human fetus, by the above definition is life. A human fetus by its very definetion is human life. Humans are supposed to get emotional about other human life.

My point was twofold, this subject is emotive and it should be for the reasons above, and the only differance between people is the stage at which we get emotive about human life.

As I say I am pro choice, but make no mistake to my mind haveing an abortion is killing a life. Now the truely non-emotive response to that would be to agree with that statement, I wonder why so many pro choicers would get emotive and declare 'no it is not'

I agree, this is bullshit. They should have just made abortion IN GENERAL illegal. They should make abortion a capital offense, and not only that, but increase funding for alternatives such as adoption.

Wait wait ... you are against killing what you view as a person but advocate killing a different person instead ...

Pro LIFE my ass

ANATOMY OF AN ANTI-CHOICE ARGUMENT

Well, this has been fun. Gens Romae seems to have scarpered, but he nevertheless gave us a beautiful, text-book example of a classic anti-choice argument for us to dissect.

Ignoring all his Greek philosophy bullshit, I went ahead and excerpted from all of his points that were on topic remarks that I believe are indicative of his actual stance as well as the weaknesses in this classic approach. I lay my conclusions out below for consideration. The quotes have been re-organized by example-group. Warning: This is a long one.:


EXAMPLES OF GENS ROMAE ADVOCATING THE KILLING OF HUMAN BEINGS:

<snip> They should make abortion a capital offense, <snip>.

<snip>

The extinguishment of the life of any innocent human being, by its very nature, causes a sense of disgust in absolutely any person to hear of it. Indeed, the extinguishment of even the life of a guilty person, though we understand it to be occassionally justified, will cause a sense of revulsion in most, if not all, people.

I actually have been seriously reconsidering my position on the death penalty. On one hand, the death penalty isn't necessarily evil. It is occassionally a necessary action to defend society against dangerous criminals.

On the other hand, the Stoics proclaim that any punishment should serve to rehabilitate rather than punish in the spirit of vengeance, proclaiming the universal brotherhood of all men.

However, I ask myself: What about those who cannot be rehabilitated?

IMPLICATION: Gens Romae is willing to kill human beings who he judges no longer worthy of life due to behavior he considers sufficiently bad. Gens Romae draws a moral distinction between "innocence" and "guilt", he decides what behavior or condition falls into which category, and he claims a moral justification by which to remove the "guilty" from this world. This undermines his asssertion that his concern is to protect life. Rather, it suggests that his concern is to enforce a set behaviors upon others. His last remark reinforces this by the suggestion that he believes that at least some people who commit crimes cannot be rehabilitated and, therefore, by implication within the context of his own remarks, deserve death.


EXAMPLES OF GENS ROMAE CLAIMING MORAL SUPERIORITY FOR HIS OWN VIEWS IN VAGUE CONTRAST TO THE PRESUMED VIEWS OF OTHERS:

<snip> The point is that, however, the same people who desire fiscal conservativism are the same people who believe in good family values...such as not murdering pre born children.

<snip> We are talking about, for the most part, good middle and upper class Christian gentlemen who don't like the idea of homosexuals forcibly taking children and eating their brains (Alright, the last bit was hyperbole...I couldn't resist. But you get the point, yes?)

You say "abortion," whereas I say "murder."

IMPLICATION: Gens Romae draws in broad strokes, grouping any who do not agree with him into a large unit that also includes many presumed opinions which his opponents have not actually claimed. He believes the lumped-together opinions to be bad, and therefore, he believes making it appear that someone believes them will reflect badly upon that person. However, he has no basis of fact upon which to make the connections he implies. This is an obvious ploy - a "guilt by association" attempt to discredit his opponents before they have even presented their arguments. It fails because he has no way to prove that any such correlations exist. This is why he, like others who use this ploy, try to be as vague as possible and even to disguise their attacks as jokes.


EXAMPLES OF GENS ROMAE ATTEMPTING TO PRESENT HIS OPINION AS IF IT IS FACT, WITHOUT SUPPORTING FACTUAL EVIDENCE:

<snip>
If you kill an embryo, then, even if it is merely a second, half a second, indeed a quarter of a second or less newly created, it nonetheless possesses a Human Soul, the emmanent Form of man, and is undergoing an ordered, directed flux towards Manhood, and so to extinguish that life of the embryo is not to kill merely a bundle of cells, but that which is of the Form of man, and possessing of a human soul.

Therefore, from the moment of creation, an embryo must be treated as a human person, and to kill it is to murder a man.

Absolutely not, for the emmanent of man draws it towards its most perfect state, which is to say, man in his prime. [b]Death, therefore, is not part of the form of man, but the degredation of manhood. If you want to use the Holy Bible, then, you shall note that death entered the world through sin.

Is personhood in the case of 21st century any different than personhood in the 4th century bc? I assuredly think not. <snip>

Biology is irrelevent in terms of what I am talking about, except to show that the fetus is, in fact, in the process of becoming a man.

<snip>

Look, here's the point I'm ultimately making. You are all basing your understanding of morality on empirical observation, which necessarily can only inform us about the material world. The material however, is completely detatched from what should be our moral understandings.

Empirically, a fetus may appear different than an adult. They are, however, possessing of the same Form, and so are morally exactly the same.

IMPLICATION: Gens Romae enters the debate with a set of beliefs that have no foundation in fact and which, therefore, cannot be defended in a debate. His ploys are to present his beliefs as if they are facts in and of themselves, something on the order of "water is wet," but this attempt fails because the wetness of water can be proven, whereas claims such as "death, therefore, is not part of the form of man, but the degredation of manhood" cannot. The purpose of this ploy is to present his opinions authoritatively enough that his opponents will be tricked into arguing within the structure he creates -- bringing along his own "home court" for the game to be played in, as it were. But in practical terms, it adds nothing but redundancy to his arguments, wins no points, and persuades no opponents. It is a deflection ploy, not an argument and is indicative of the weakness of GR's original argument.


EXAMPLES OF GENS ROMAE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE LAW DOES NOT AGREE WITH HIM AND REJECTING THE LAW IN FAVOR OF AN APPEAL TO AN AUTHORITY FOR WHICH HE OFFERS NO PROOF OF EITHER EXISTENCE OR RELEVANCE:

It's against the natural law.

<snip> For my own part, I care not what the US law says, for if it contradicts the Natural Law, by which every human person's conscience is bound, it is not law, but chaos.

IMPLICATION: Another ploy designed to try to escape a fatal blow to one's argument. When a known, generally accepted, long-standing authority provides evidence with which GR's argument can be defeated (i.e. that abortion is not murder because the law decides what is murder and what is not, and the law says abortion is not murder), his only recourse is to ask that his argument be instead judged by a different authority of his own choosing. He makes claims to some kind of over-arching universality for this supposed authority, but he offers no evidence for it that would induce anyone but him to accept it.


EXAMPLES OF GENS ROMAE RESORTING TO GODWIN. THIS IS GENERALLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE A FATAL WEAKNESS IN ANY ARGUMENT, INDICATIVE OF A LACK OF ANY FURTHER OR NEW POINTS OR COUNTERPOINTS TO MAKE:

<snip>

Indeed, Adolf Hitler did not paint the Jews as evil criminals who needed to purged from the Fatherland, but rather as monsters who weren't even human. Rest you assured, it is hard to kill someone, and the Nazis and pro abortionists are much alike insofar as they emotionally gird themselves by pushing away the idea that they might indeed be slaughtering an innocent human person.

<snip>

I quote Fr. Corappi: If you take all the Hitlers, all the Stalins, all the Sadaam Housseins in the world, you still won't have reached the horror that is abortion.

<snip>
Doesn't apply when the atrocity in question is greater than the analogy drawn from the holocaust.

IMPLICATION: The Godwin is an attempt to so inflame the argument and so demonize the opposing view as to make it impossible to proceed. To my knowledge, it has never succeeded, thus making it such a weak ploy that the person who uses it is usually immediately declared to have lost the debate. 'Nuff said, I think. NOTE: The bolded language within the quotes show that GR was intentionally trying to be inflammatory by use of hyberbolic language.


EXAMPLES OF GENS ROMAE APPLYING PEJORATIVE MORALISTIC LANGUAGE TO ABORTION, REGARDLESS OF LACK OF FACTUAL SUPPORT:

<snip>

The extinguishment of the life of any innocent human being, by its very nature, causes a sense of disgust in absolutely any person to hear of it. Indeed, the extinguishment of even the life of a guilty person, though we understand it to be occassionally justified, will cause a sense of revulsion in most, if not all, people.

The murder of an innocent child has nothing to do with a woman's sexual freedom, even if a woman's sexual freedom were to be taken into consideration.

<snip>
I am pro innocent human life.
(Implication: but against other kinds of life?)

And this at any rate is murder.

<snip> You say "abortion," whereas I say "murder."

<snip> Sure, it is your body, to a degree.The means by which you remove that person from your body, however, is intrinsically evil, and an ends cannot justify an intrinsically evil means. ;)

IMPLICATION: Related to the claim of moral superiority in general and to the Godwin, this ploy is designed to blacken the reputation of GR's opponents by suggesting that they support a woman's right to abort her pregnancy because they want to kill people or are otherwise colored by an overtone of "evil."


EXAMPLES OF GENS ROMAE BRUSHING ASIDE CONCERN FOR THE RIGHTS OR NEEDS OF WOMEN IN THE ISSUE OF ABORTION:

The murder of an innocent child has nothing to do with a woman's sexual freedom, even if a woman's sexual freedom were to be taken into consideration.

<snip> Sure, it is your body, to a degree. The means by which you remove that person from your body, however, is intrinsically evil, and an ends cannot justify an intrinsically evil means. ;)

IMPLICATION: According to Gens Romae, there is only one party affected by pregnancy/abortion, and that is the fetus. The woman does not matter and her needs are not to be considered. This is related to the first set of examples in which we saw that Gens Romae is more concerned with controlling other people's lives than "saving" those lives. By putting fetuses above women, he automatically devalues one human being in favor of another, and thus loses all credibility in his claims to want to protect "human life." Over and over, he has made it clear that he is only interested in protecting some lives, the ones he consideres to be "innocent." Apparently, being a pregnant woman makes one guilty of something.

NOTE: GR's remarks about women further imply an assumption that the default position of women is one of a lack of personal liberty. Apparently, women's bodies are owned by someone or something other than the women themselves.


DEFINITIVE EXAMPLE OF THE FLAWS IN GENS ROMAE'S THINKING:

<snip>
1. Assume knowledge is defined as having a target and being infallible.
2. We can have knowledge.
3. All material things (defined by Aristotle) are in flux.
4. No material thing can be known.
5. There must be something that is not material, and is steadfast and unchanging. This we call the Good.

CONCLUSION: Any argument that begins with an assumption and then draws its conclusion based on a lack of something not covered by the starting assumption is a weak argument.

There are lots of definitions of life, and the one that makes most sense to me is: If it has an inside and an outside, that is if it has anykind of outer protection to it's inner gubbins(cell walls), and if it metabolises, and if it has processes for carrying on it's genetic makeup after it's demise, then it is life.

You're going to include a whole lot in that definition that most people would not call a separate life unless you get more specific. For instance, if I'm reading this right and you are saying it applies to an early embryo, then every cell and every organ in my body is a separate life. I am taking human life by scratching an itch.

I find that it is better to define these things by the entity you are looking at. At the point where a fetus meets all of the biological requirements of life as an entity, instead of as single cells, it can be said to, as an entity, be a living organism.

IMPLICATION: According to Gens Romae, there is only one party affected by pregnancy/abortion, and that is the fetus. The woman does not matter and her needs are not to be considered. This is related to the first set of examples in which we saw that Gens Romae is more concerned with controlling other people's lives than "saving" those lives. By putting fetuses above women, he automatically devalues one human being in favor of another, and thus loses all credibility in his claims to want to protect "human life." Over and over, he has made it clear that he is only interested in protecting some lives, the ones he consideres to be "innocent." Apparently, being a pregnant woman makes one guilty of something.

Not to mention that he also argued that a woman should not have access to abortions even when her own health or life is in danger from continuing the pregnancy.

View Post
Kat, there is a fiscally conservative party that has been gaining a fair amount of momentum in recent years, which is to say, the Libertarian party. The point is that, however, the same people who desire fiscal conservativism are the same people who believe in good family values...such as not murdering pre born children.

You missed this one, Muravyets. If Gens Romae truly were a libertarian, as he so claims, then he would be against government interference in others' affairs. However, his rabidly anti-abortion sentiments show that he is in fact only in favour of people doing as they please without interference when they are doing something he considers acceptable. If it is something that goes against his fundamentalist religious views, then the government needs to outlaw it. He is a hypocrite, not a libertarian.

<snip>

Not to mention that he also argued that a woman should not have access to abortions even when her own health or life is in danger from continuing the pregnancy.

Good point. And obviously, if women do not own their own bodies, and if some external authority (such as Gens Romae himself) has the power and right to determine who gets to live or die based upon certain kinds of judgments, then obviously, women should expect to be condemned to death as a necessary sacrifice for an "innocent human life" (a category which clearly does not include women).

You missed this one, Muravyets. If Gens Romae truly were a libertarian, as he so claims, then he would be against government interference in others' affairs. However, his rabidly anti-abortion sentiments show that he is in fact only in favour of people doing as they please without interference when they are doing something he considers acceptable. If it is something that goes against his fundamentalist religious views, then the government needs to outlaw it. He is a hypocrite, not a libertarian.

Sounds kind of like Ron Paul. He'll tell you the government needs to get out of just about everything - especially programs designed to be a boost to society. Oh, but they should outlaw abortion.

Wtf?

Sounds kind of like Ron Paul. He'll tell you the government needs to get out of just about everything - especially programs designed to be a boost to society. Oh, but they should outlaw abortion.

Wtf?

Ron Paul is a nutcase.

You missed this one, Muravyets. If Gens Romae truly were a libertarian, as he so claims, then he would be against government interference in others' affairs. However, his rabidly anti-abortion sentiments show that he is in fact only in favour of people doing as they please without interference when they are doing something he considers acceptable. If it is something that goes against his fundamentalist religious views, then the government needs to outlaw it. He is a hypocrite, not a libertarian.
Yes, indeed. I skipped over that becuase it wasn't about abortion specifically, but yes, GR has shown a tendency to claim membership in a larger group that he thinks epitomizes ideals that he think would make himself look good -- i.e. less radical, more reasonable. This is the flip-side, I guess, of slapping all his opponents with an over-broad negative label -- claiming for himself an over-broad positive label.

Of course, as you point out, it is easily disproven by simply comparing his stance and beliefs to those of the group he claims membership in.

I think hypocrisy is certainly a common thread throughout most of the examples I listed.

You're going to include a whole lot in that definition that most people would not call a separate life unless you get more specific. For instance, if I'm reading this right and you are saying it applies to an early embryo, then every cell and every organ in my body is a separate life. I am taking human life by scratching an itch.

I find that it is better to define these things by the entity you are looking at. At the point where a fetus meets all of the biological requirements of life as an entity, instead of as single cells, it can be said to, as an entity, be a living organism.


Yes you are quite right and it is something that I have realised and thought about. Every single cell is alive and fully constitutes life on it's own, a blade of grass is as alive as a cell in that blade.

Yes when you scratch yourself you are killing life. It is hard though to be emotional for the life of your own skin cells.

As I have said the only differance is the stage of life at which we get emotionaly attached, for me it is the embryobic stage.

I can't help this, it is just how I feel.

The point though was in counter to Bottles call about emotionlising. It is emotional, saying it is not does not really constitute a proper debate. In addition if it is not emotional, why do many pro choicers have problems agreeing that a fetus is a life?

As I have said the only differance is the stage of life at which we get emotionaly attached, for me it is the embryobic stage.

I wouldn't agree that this is the "only" difference. I'll be honest, I'm emotional about the chance that I might, at some point, have a zygote form inside me. And if I somehow knew the instant it happened, I would be emotionally attached from the very start.

This does not mean, however, that I would view that zygote, the blastocyst that formed from it, or the early embryo as a human life. I would place value on it, because I would value what it might become.

In the end, what matters in this debate is when one can successfully argue that the state has an interest in stepping in and protecting the life of the fetus from the medical decisions of the woman carrying it. Some would argue that there is no such time. Some will argue specific developmental points. In the end, the argument generally becomes rather useless, as women who get to certain stages of pregnancy almost surely want to carry to term in the first place.

And anyone who argues that a woman who has medical reasons for a late-term abortion should not be able to get one can shove it.

I can't help this, it is just how I feel.

The point though was in counter to Bottles call about emotionlising. It is emotional, saying it is not does not really constitute a proper debate. In addition if it is not emotional, why do many pro choicers have problems agreeing that a fetus is a life?

I don't think Bottle is suggesting that people aren't emotional about it. What she is saying is that emotion does not constitute proper debate. I can tell someone all day long that I get emotional about an embryo, and they won't (and shouldn't be expected to) care. I can't debate them by saying, "This makes me sad!" I have to find something a bit less subjective than that if I'm going to convince anyone of anything.

I wouldn't agree that this is the "only" difference. I'll be honest, I'm emotional about the chance that I might, at some point, have a zygote form inside me. And if I somehow knew the instant it happened, I would be emotionally attached from the very start.

This does not mean, however, that I would view that zygote, the blastocyst that formed from it, or the early embryo as a human life. I would place value on it, because I would value what it might become.

Ohh yes I fully agree with you there. Perhaps I should have omited the word only9



In the end, what matters in this debate is when one can successfully argue that the state has an interest in stepping in and protecting the life of the fetus from the medical decisions of the woman carrying it. Some would argue that there is no such time. Some will argue specific developmental points. In the end, the argument generally becomes rather useless, as women who get to certain stages of pregnancy almost surely want to carry to term in the first place.

And anyone who argues that a woman who has medical reasons for a late-term abortion should not be able to get one can shove it.

Again I agree, my argument is based soley on the emotional aspect of this topic.



I don't think Bottle is suggesting that people aren't emotional about it. What she is saying is that emotion does not constitute proper debate. I can tell someone all day long that I get emotional about an embryo, and they won't (and shouldn't be expected to) care. I can't debate them by saying, "This makes me sad!" I have to find something a bit less subjective than that if I'm going to convince anyone of anything.


Heh I did not say that. Bottle did say that emotion in this topic is not proper debate and that an appel to it is a sign that it has not been thought about.

I want to deny that totaly. My point is, and remains, when we talk about life, human life it is right and it is proper to get emotional about it.

If we are debating the death sentance for paedophiles for instance we would expect to see some emotion.

The appeal to emotion in this topic is very valid, valid because it is human life. And again can anybody answer me if emotion should not be allowed into this debate, why can't some people agree that an abortion is ending life?

For those who say that appeal to emotion is wrong, let's ask why it's allowed in court.

Juries are swayed by appeal to emotion, and everyone knows it, and everyone does it.

Judges also make emotional statements from the bench - especially during sentencing. There is often reference to outrage.

While it's nice to think that we can all be 100% logical like Spock, and completely unemotional, it's not reality.