Saturday, May 21, 2016

Humanizing Humans At The Embryonic Stage of Human Development: Burying Little Bobbie.

My idea was to give all aborted embryos cute names, like Cecil the lion had. But this idea is better, and the two ideas could be combined.

Humanizing Aborted Fetuses Through Burial

A new law in Indiana requires that the bodies of aborted fetuses by treated with the respect due any dead human body. From The Atlantic story by Emma Green:
She will be given a list of her options for disposal, and offered counseling. The fetus does not have to be named, but it will receive its own burial-transit form, just like any dead body.

This form will travel with it to a funeral home, where it will be buried or cremated. There won’t necessarily be a ceremony; the fetus may not get its own headstone or urn. But it will be laid to rest in the way of a human. Aborted fetuses in Indiana, nearly all smaller than a peapod, will no longer be treated as medical waste.
s/he's human: should have a name.

28 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...

Breaking news: Conservative lawmakers make emotional decision to further shame women who get safe and legal abortions.

It's old news btw... took me 2 min to find an article I vaguely remember on that topic:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/04/13/3768607/fetal-burial-laws-ohio/

Stan said...

Yes. It is a shame that women should have to consider what they are doing beyond the "kill it and move on" scenario presented by the "Choice to kill" lobby.

Euthanasia of the unwitting is murder; especially when it is done by ripping apart the victim. If there were any doubt about that, the Planned Parenthood videos dispelled that, forever.

When human life is redefinable as valued for some, not valued for others, the moral base is null.

Hugo Pelland said...

Oh but they do know what they are getting rid of, it's the irrational emotionally driven anti-choice crowd that doesn't know what they are talking about... but they stull want to impose their backward views on others, because of their emotional attachment to a meaningless group of cells.

Stan said...

"Meaningless" is your opinion, that of an elitist moral authority who can declare any human at any stage to be Meaningless. "Useless eaters" was another opinion of Atheist moral authority; "genetic disasters" was yet another opinion of Atheist moral authority. There are many more.

Without any grounding, Atheist moral authority is just personal opinion. But it is declared as if it were actual objective moral Truth. It is that declaration of ungrounded "Truth" which allows for killing humans at any stage of human development which the Atheist deems acceptable for eradication, for being "meaningless" to the Atheist.

Entire classes of people have been eradicated by Atheists wielding moral authority. The 20th century was characterized by just that.

Hugo Pelland said...

You just throw accusations and insults, as you have nothing to defend your position. We understand human reproduction and what is implied at every single stage of development. On the other hand, the religious claims moral superiority; you claim to be the elite that knows best, that has Truth on their side, just because. You give no reason, no arguments, no logical position; just pure emotional rant based on your subjective opinion.

It's not because you claim that you have Truth on your side that you have it. Truth is objective; it's not what a certain point of view wants it to be. The fact that you need to bring up Atheism in a debate that has nothing to do with the existence of God only serves to prove that there is nothing to offer from the anti-choice side. Plus, it's a contradiction, as you have yourself mentioned before that there are in fact some Atheists that disagree with abortion.

Ironically, you are the one who argue that an entire class of people is evil, irrational, and, why not, eradicated: Atheists. As it has been pointed to you many times, there is very little in common among all Atheists, yet you purposely lump all of Atheists together in order to disparage them as a whole, whenever you see fit, even if the topic has nothing to do with Atheism. You are what you are complaining about.

Xellos said...

Hugo:

"and, why not, eradicated"

[citation needed]

Stan said...

”You just throw accusations and insults, as you have nothing to defend your position. We understand human reproduction and what is implied at every single stage of development.”

Oh. Then you admit that it is HUMAN development, then? Not just any lump of random molecules? You are perfectly understanding that no human gets to be born without going through the HUMAN development? That life is begotten only by prior life? Even evolution is based on that obvious knowledge. And: That is what is implied. Your epty claim that something else is implied is without even a quantum of evidence which can show otherwise, because it is fact: the ONLY way to become who you are is to have been through that state of human development.

”On the other hand, the religious claims moral superiority”

This is obtuse ridicule-worthy foolishness. If a human has value, then all humans have value. You cannot believe that if you declare some humans to be killable, based on your own authority.

”… you claim to be the elite that knows best, that has Truth on their side, just because.”

False, and a blatant lie. I argue the facts of human existence, and the common objective morality that all humans have value which no other human should devalue, much less kill. You are making up Tu Quoques to hide the fact that you do, indeed, declare a specific set of humans at a specific time in the normal development of human life, to be killable. KILLABLE. It’s your position. Live with it and defend your morality instead of pretending that it is immoral to defend human life.

” You give no reason, no arguments, no logical position; just pure emotional rant based on your subjective opinion.”

Another blatant lie. I said, and I repeat:

”When human life is redefinable as valued for some, not valued for others, the moral base is null.”

Here’s an argument made in the distant past, which you also hated, being jealous of your ability to legally kill:

1. If [females are a protected Victimhood Class], THEN [they should not be killed].

2. Based on statistics, just over half of births are to females.

3. Therefore, no fetus which is >50% probability of being female should be killed.

And another:

1. To kill a pregnant woman two murders, one for the woman, one for the fetus.

2. For the mother to kill a child is murder.

3. For the mother to kill a fetus is encouraged, especially for the poor and black.

4. It is the woman’s Human Right to kill her progeny, so long as the AtheoLeft has defined the timing.

5. If the woman misses the timing, then if she kills her progeny she has committed murder.

6. Secretive abbatoirs must be available so that any woman can kill her progeny in secret, with no oversight and no health inspections and no hospital admittance privileges required for the “doctors”. Otherwise, the woman might hurt herself.

7. The female fetuses have no chance of aborting the women who conceived them.

Stan said...

” It's not because you claim that you have Truth on your side that you have it. Truth is objective…

Oh really? Do tell! That is the first time an Atheist has claimed this that I can recall. Where do you find your Objective Truth, then; what is the source? What is the moral authority of the source?

”it's not what a certain point of view wants it to be.”

Presumably this means that you can declare a fertilized egg growing in a womb NOT to be human, because that judgment is Objective Truth from some sort of purely physical, material Moral Authority? I can hardly wait to hear about this material source of moral authority for Objective Truth to which you subscribe for your permit to kill.

The fact that you need to bring up Atheism in a debate that has nothing to do with the existence of God only serves to prove that there is nothing to offer from the anti-choice side.

Sorry. You are grasping. You claim Objective Truth and Moral Authority for permission to kill based on a phony definition of what a human consists of – just like the millions of Atheists before you. You have to justify that claim, and it will certainly be interesting to see you do it.

It’s your claim: justify it. Go ahead.

”Plus, it's a contradiction, as you have yourself mentioned before that there are in fact some Atheists that disagree with abortion.”

That’s your “contradiction”? For every million Atheists who believe they have moral authority to kill, there is one, maybe two who don’t believe that? Atheism is an enabler for your elitism. Like the light switch on the wall doesn’t create light but it enables it, Atheism doesn’t create elitism, it merely sets the conditions for the Atheist to THINK he’s elite, and the self-deception tumbles from there.

”Ironically, you are the one who argue that an entire class of people is evil, irrational, and, why not, eradicated: Atheists.”

Another blatant lie. I have never argued that Atheists should be eradicated. But they must be monitored and fought to keep their evil under control.

”As it has been pointed to you many times, there is very little in common among all Atheists, yet you purposely lump all of Atheists together in order to disparage them as a whole, whenever you see fit, even if the topic has nothing to do with Atheism.”

The Atheists fit into a class, one which rejects Objective Moral Authority which each Atheist has not created for himself according to his own proclivities; each Atheist is his own moral authority. The class also holds those who reject All Authority in pursuit of perfect personal freedom to think whatever absurdity the FreeThinkers approve of at the moment. Civil authority is respected if there is a chance of incarceration or punishment for violation of civil laws. In general, the Atheist is superior to and far above the herd which is controlled by laws and morality. Further, the Atheist class in general believes that their inherent superiority should allow them to be the intellectual and moral priesthood class which can designate Victims and Oppressors, with the moral priesthood class acting as messiahs who will promise salvation to the Victims in return for their permanent fealty. They become delusional in their self-image of moral ubermenchen. And all it takes is one rejectionist three-word statement: “Ain’t do deity”. No other proof is required for them to achieve eliteness.

Not all Atheists will admit to this elitist worldview. It is an onerous worldview, and most Atheists know that it is base. But the necessity of it is inherent in their obvious superiority to all other humans.

”You are what you are complaining about.”

Terminally weak attempt at Tu Quoque. You cannot refute anything which is said above. That is why you attempt to re-focus the heat and light from Atheism and onto the criticism of Atheism. When anyone looks seriously at Atheism and its proponents, the above becomes obvious to the point of self-evidently valid and true. You have no counter case with which to refute it.

Stan said...

What sane human claims, "I wish I had been aborted before I was a human!"?

Hugo Pelland said...

Xellos, Stan, I am not pretending that anyone literally said 'let's eradicate Atheists', hence the use of the words 'and, why not, eradicated'; a rhetorical question... Stan provided an adequate answer:

"But they must be monitored and fought to keep their evil under control. "

The problem is that there is nothing to fight when it comes to Atheism, actual Atheism. It's not because you, Stan, decide to associate every single issue you find appalling in the news to Atheists, or the Atheo-Left, that Atheism is the cause. You keep misrepresenting what it means to be an Atheist, and the best evidence is the use of that same term, Atheo-Left. You know there are Atheists that are not particularly Left-leaning, politically, and you know that there are Leftists, especially in the USA, that are not Atheists. But it does not matter, you keep lumping everyone together because... it serves the narrative of this blog... I suppose. I don't know, I don't think I will ever understand that form of despise that you harbor towards Atheists as a whole. Hence, I can only go issue by issue. So, back to the topic of this thread:

"Then you admit that it is HUMAN development, then? Not just any lump of random molecules? You are perfectly understanding that no human gets to be born without going through the HUMAN development? That life is begotten only by prior life?"

Of course it's HUMAN development; why is that surprising? A single spermatozoid is also part of the development process; a single egg is part of the development process, their combination into 1 human cell is part of the process, the division of that cell is part of the process, their exponential multiplication is part of the process... and so on. The question, to be addressed rationally, and not emotionally, is whether it is acceptable to get rid of these HUMAN CELLS before they yield an actual HUMAN PERSON. There is a difference here, CELLS, VS, PERSON.

The religious emotional view attempts to equate the two, which is very ironic in my opinion, as this is coming from the same people who want to argue that saving babies, as if they really were people already, is what matter. So, they destroy the meaning of what a PERSON really is, by stating that even just a couple of human CELLS are like a PERSON, and then claim that they are the ones who care about people...

They also don't care about PEOPLE in many other ways. They don't care about the fact that nobody should be forced to have their body used by another human being, yet this is precisely what forcing a pregnancy on a woman means. Of course, the woman should know better and do everything she can to avoid the pregnancy in the first place, but mistakes/accidents/defective material do happen. In such case, the woman had no intention to conceive another human being, no intention to have that person use her body, yet should be forced to do so, just because someone else, not her, thinks that the human cells inside her are just the same a fully formed human person.

Another way they don't care about people is by ignoring the consequences of a world without abortion. As stated above, and many times before, and by any person who base their views on facts and reason, preventing abortions through sexual education while keeping abortion safe and legal is what leads to a better society for all. Less unwanted pregnancies, less botched abortions and better lives for the kids that do end up being born. Because the other thing that the anti-crowd forgets is that when a woman is forced to have a baby, this means that the baby she 'would' have later on, when she is ready, will never be born. But, for some emotional reason, they refuse to think of that future child. The only thing that matter is that lump of cells, today, that 'could' become a person in a few months. Both are completely hypothetical persons, yet the one that has a tangible pack of cells in development matters more, for purely emotional reasons.

Hugo Pelland said...

"If a human has value, then all humans have value. You cannot believe that if you declare some humans to be killable, based on your own authority."

The problem is that you choose to define 'humans' as anything right after the moment of conception. This is a definition based purely on emotions, not rational thinking.

" I argue the facts of human existence, and the common objective morality that all humans have value which no other human should devalue, much less kill."

Exactly, you pretend that 'your' definition of what it means to be human is the right one. It is a form of elitism, where you impose your views on others in order to shame them, to make them feel wrong. This is what conservatives lawmakers have been doing. They use emotions by accusing women of literally killing another human being when they get an abortion. I think we all agree that killing humans is wrong (save some exceptional cases such as self-defense of course) but the debate around abortion is not about killing humans; that's what the anti-choice crowd wants it to be about. It's using the emotional response most, if not all, of use have regarding killing. We don't want to do it, collaborate in doing it and certainly not be victim of it. And that's what you do in the next sentence:

"you do, indeed, declare a specific set of humans at a specific time in the normal development of human life, to be killable. KILLABLE. It’s your position. Live with it and defend your morality instead of pretending that it is immoral to defend human life."

You can continue to claim that, all day long if you want, but it means absolutely nothing to me, nor to anyone who is in favor of safe and legal abortions. There is no human being killed during an abortion. Yes, there are human CELLS being killed, if you insist on using the word 'kill', but they are still not 'a' human. Defending life, for everyone, is actually what the pro-choice side is doing, by trying to make the lives of people alive today, and future generations', better. Forcing people to have kids when they don't want to is not making life better for anyone. It only serves some emotional response that people have when they see the 'miracle' of human development in action. They look at that fetus that looks like a human and feel like a human is being killed. But it is not a human. Not at all. It's only by twisting the definition of what it means to be human that the anti-choice crowds succeeds in emotionally convincing others that abortion is actually killing people.

"Here’s an argument made in the distant past, which you also hated, being jealous of your ability to legally kill:

1. If [females are a protected Victimhood Class], THEN [they should not be killed].
"

Well, you disagree that females are a protected class, since you clearly state all the time that you don't think there should be any such class. Hence, you don't accept the first premise of your own argument. So what's the point of continuing it?

But there is more wrong to it anyway, as it also refers to the notion of 'killing', which is a non-sequitur. Again, it's not about trying to kill a person

Hugo Pelland said...

"1. To kill a pregnant woman two murders, one for the woman, one for the fetus."

Same thing again. There is really just 1 argument over and over again: abortion kills a human. But this depends on the subjective, emotionally-based, definition of what it means to be human. Hence, the arguments have no weight. They are not invalid; they are actually perfectly reasonable arguments, but only once the notion of a human being anything starting at conception.


"That is the first time an Atheist has claimed this that I can recall. Where do you find your Objective Truth, then; what is the source? What is the moral authority of the source?"

I must have told you no less than 100 times that I believe in both objective truth and objective morality. (And I might even be exaggerating the number; just look at the other thread, on which I reply back soon btw but I take more time for that more complex philosophical topic, and you will see 20 references to 'objective' among my words.) Basically, there are 2 distinct things; you seem to mix them together here. All Atheists would agree with the notion of objective truth, I think, but definitely not all Atheists agree about objective morality. Some claim that morality is always subjective; others claim that it is objective. This was discussed on that other thread, yet it's the first time an Atheist has claimed this?

"You claim Objective Truth and Moral Authority for permission to kill based on a phony definition of what a human consists of – just like the millions of Atheists before you. You have to justify that claim, and it will certainly be interesting to see you do it.

It’s your claim: justify it. Go ahead.
"

Objective means that it does not depend on the opinion of someone. This is the huge contradiction that I always run into on the Theistic side. On the one hand, some sort of conscious being, a god, is needed to provide a moral framework but, on the other hand, it is claim that objective moral truths exist. This is a contradiction, as the moral truths that the deity would prescribe would be, by definition, the subjective views of that deity.

It is simpler when it comes to Objective Truth, where claims, any claims, don't depend on the subjective views of conscious beings. Things are what they are. They are not what they are not. And any truth claims are based on these notions. We, as humans, try to assess which claims are true, or not, as we can certainly create claims that are either. No god needed here to explain any of that.

"”Plus, it's a contradiction, as you have yourself mentioned before that there are in fact some Atheists that disagree with abortion.”

That’s your “contradiction”? For every million Atheists who believe they have moral authority to kill, there is one, maybe two who don’t believe that?
"

It does not matter how many; it's a logical statement. It's either true of false that ALL Atheists believe abortion is wrong. The answer is 'false'. The implication is thus that Atheism does not directly link to a support for abortion. And this has no bearing on the fact that Theists also believe that abortions are acceptable. This latter point is much stronger of course; it proves beyond doubt that it's not Atheism alone that relates to abortion.
"Atheism is an enabler for your elitism. Like the light switch on the wall doesn’t create light but it enables it, Atheism doesn’t create elitism, it merely sets the conditions for the Atheist to THINK he’s elite, and the self-deception tumbles from there."

Cute insult... and you pretend I am the one who keeps using Tu Toque fallacies, etc... As I keep mentioning, it's hard to ignore these commentaries Stan. Anyway...

Stan said...

”Xellos, Stan, I am not pretending that anyone literally said 'let's eradicate Atheists', hence the use of the words 'and, why not, eradicated'; a rhetorical question... Stan provided an adequate answer:

"But they must be monitored and fought to keep their evil under control. "

The problem is that there is nothing to fight when it comes to Atheism, actual Atheism. It's not because you, Stan, decide to associate every single issue you find appalling in the news to Atheists, or the Atheo-Left, that Atheism is the cause. You keep misrepresenting what it means to be an Atheist, and the best evidence is the use of that same term, Atheo-Left.”


As I have explained to you many times, the term AtheoLeft is a set conjunction of those Atheists who are Leftists. That amounts to most Atheists, and approximates the total population of Atheists. Hitchens obviously was not an AtheoLeftist. Name another influential Atheist who is not Leftist. The tendency is overwhelming.

You keep complaining about being misrepresented. Well, I have taken on Hitchens as well as the AtheoLeft. Hitchens was just as arrogantly wrong and just as totalitarian in his diktats.

It appears as if your continual complaints of misrepresentation are Red Herrings which you use to deflect any responsibility for owning your beliefs and their consequences. And as a reminder, I discuss Atheism here, because that is what this blog is devoted to, and is about. And the fact that I discuss the tendencies of the overwhelming majority of Atheists to make up their own moralities, to self-anoint as elites and thus become Leftist totalitarians and dangerous to Free Speech and freedom of thought and dissent – all of that is perfectly in line with the purpose of this blog.

You assert that Atheism is actually nothing, a “non-belief”, therefore it has no content and cannot be discussed. That is false and self-serving. Atheism is and always has been a rejectionist philosophy and worldview, based on neither logic nor evidence in its support. And for those reasons Atheism is anti-rational ( a la’ Nietzsche), hegemonic, and without a moral grounding. These traits possibly are found in minorities of non-Atheists; however, they dominate the Atheist population.

Rather than defend Atheism, you choose to call these analyses biased, prejudiced, and essentially a lie – while presenting no evidence which is contrary to that which is obvious, even self-evident in the culture.

Stan said...

”You know there are Atheists that are not particularly Left-leaning, politically, and you know that there are Leftists, especially in the USA, that are not Atheists. But it does not matter, you keep lumping everyone together because... it serves the narrative of this blog... I suppose.”

This is your constant and consistent defense, and you use it rather than to defend Atheism from the charges against its VOID of moral grounding and intellectual rigor.

” I don't know, I don't think I will ever understand that form of despise that you harbor towards Atheists as a whole.”

And now charging me with a Hate Crime. It is now “hate” to shine the light of logic and reason onto the worldview of Anti-rationalism and moral baselessness. The last resort of the intellectually desperate.

"Hence, I can only go issue by issue. So, back to the topic of this thread:

"Then you admit that it is HUMAN development, then? Not just any lump of random molecules? You are perfectly understanding that no human gets to be born without going through the complete chain of HUMAN development? That life is begotten only by prior life?"

Of course it's HUMAN development; why is that surprising?”


You referred to the embryo or zygote or whatever name might be given to the fertilized cell attached to the uterus as “meaningless”. Now we can establish that you understand that this cell is human, with its own life and identity, is growing through a necessary phase of human development. That, according to you, is meaningless in the decision to kill that human.

A single spermatozoid is also part of the development process; a single egg is part of the development process, their combination into 1 human cell is part of the process, the division of that cell is part of the process, their exponential multiplication is part of the process... and so on.

Thanks for the admission.

”The question, to be addressed rationally, and not emotionally, is whether it is acceptable to get rid of these HUMAN CELLS before they yield an actual HUMAN PERSON. There is a difference here, CELLS, VS, PERSON.”

And the difference which you claim to exist materially, being a materialist, comes in a material form which you, and those like you, are able to empirically determine, find the time in the gestation where the “person” organ is installed, and declare that to be the cut-off for killing the developing human, thereby depriving her of her life.

Obviously, the ability to detect the material “Personhood Organ” is something that only the “Right To Kill” advocates have. That’s an astonishing ability. And in fact it Does Not Exist. There is no more onerous ploy than to claim the ability to deny personhood to another human. That is the thrust of all of the Leftist/AtheoLeftist (see what I did there?) push to redefine terminology to suit their hegemonic Hegelian objectives. Redefining mental disorders in order to endow them with superior moral and legal precedence over common sense is all part of the exact same philosophy: anti-rational iconoclasm directed at all norms for their destruction.

Stan said...

”The religious emotional view attempts to equate the two, which is very ironic in my opinion, as this is coming from the same people who want to argue that saving babies, as if they really were people already, is what matter.”

Apparently then, infanticide a la’ Peter Singer (the moral-free ethics prof) is OK with you, too?

”So, they destroy the meaning of what a PERSON really is, by stating that even just a couple of human CELLS are like a PERSON, and then claim that they are the ones who care about people...”

Reread what you wrote; I don’t think you wrote what you mean.

”They also don't care about PEOPLE in many other ways. They don't care about the fact that nobody should be forced to have their body used by another human being, yet this is precisely what forcing a pregnancy on a woman means.”

This is a standard interpretation, going back to Sanger and probably before: the pregnant woman is being assaulted by her fetus. This imaginary assault is called “forcing a pregnancy on a woman”. Yet the fact of the matter is that, excepting rape, no one forced the pregnancy on the woman, and it certainly was not forced by the human she is gestating, who is innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

So what we have here is false Victimhood, assigned to pregnant women because they are women. But we now know that women are secondary in the Leftist scheme. Women must allow anyone with a penis and a claimed sexual disorder to enter the Women’s Restrooms. So the sexually disordered take full priority over women, but women can kill their progeny. That is the hierarchy in the Leftist moral universe.

” Of course, the woman should know better and do everything she can to avoid the pregnancy in the first place, but mistakes/accidents/defective material do happen.”

The death of a unique human is the perfect solution to “mistakes/accidents/defective material”?

”In such case, the woman had no intention to conceive another human being, no intention to have that person use her body, yet should be forced to do so, just because someone else, not her, thinks that the human cells inside her are just the same a fully formed human person.”

This is false, stated falsely and is specifically prejudicial. The human inside the woman is a unique individual, living through the development stage: it is not “the same as a fully formed human” and it is fully human, as you have admitted.

“Don’t care about people.” What an ironic statement from the proponent of killing humans, and claiming the ability to bestow or deny “personhood” to humans in order for them to be killed.

Stan said...

”Another way they don't care about people is by ignoring the consequences of a world without abortion.”

Yes. There would be many more blacks in a world without abortion. Is that what you mean? That was Sanger’s thrust, and is the focus of the plethora of Planned Parenthood abattoirs in black neighborhoods.

But what you really mean is that since many females depend upon abortions for their birth control, they would have to go to “back alley coat hanger abortionists” for illegal abortion. Which is the same logic as giving condoms to 6th graders because “they’re gonna have sex”. In other words, encouraging the behaviors by calling them inevitable, when they are not. The hazards of bad abortionists in unclean “clinics” is very likely worse today, affecting far more women than were affected by “back alley” abortionists prior to the 1960s. This argument is without weight.

”As stated above, and many times before, and by any person who base their views on facts and reason, preventing abortions through sexual education while keeping abortion safe and legal is what leads to a better society for all.”

You are confusing empty claims for facts and reason. Here’s a fact: blacks had a very high percentage of stable, two parent families prior to Roe v. Wade. Now abortion is rampant in blacks, as is single-parent procreation and families without fathers, but plagued by the transient men in momma’s bed. Morality is out the window. Well, at least traditional morality of responsible behavior is defenestrated, and replaced with the anti-morality of AtheoLeftism.

”Less unwanted pregnancies, less botched abortions and better lives for the kids that do end up being born.”

That is Social engineering based not on hard principles, but on fantasy. The advent of universal abortion brought on the opposite of that. Sexual promiscuity, millions of abortions with unreported numbers of botched abortions, kids brought up in single parent ghettos. Facts are tougher things than fantasies.

Because the other thing that the anti-crowd forgets is that when a woman is forced to have a baby, this means that the baby she 'would' have later on, when she is ready, will never be born.”

Sorry, that’s absurd. You are advocating “saving” the future baby by killing the current one. First, there is no evidence that supports that claim; second, it is evil… unless you make up your own morality, of course.

”But, for some emotional reason, they refuse to think of that future child. The only thing that matter is that lump of cells, today, that 'could' become a person in a few months. Both are completely hypothetical persons, yet the one that has a tangible pack of cells in development matters more, for purely emotional reasons.”

More rampant absurdity. There is nothing “hypothetical” about the actual, living, genetically unique individual which you denigrate as a “lump of cells”, specifically under the impression that by so denigrating the individual, you can kill it.

"If a human has value, then all humans have value. You cannot believe that if you declare some humans to be killable, based on your own authority."

The problem is that you choose to define 'humans' as anything right after the moment of conception. This is a definition based purely on emotions, not rational thinking.”


Actually, you agreed to this just above; what you want to do is claim that there is “Personhood” which you can magically see installed into the non-Person, and therefore, that is the defined cutoff for killing. The FACT that the fertilized egg, pharyngula/zygote/clump of cells is a living human at a specific, necessary stage of HUMAN development is not a “definition”, it is FACT. And you agreed to that.

It is your claim of detecting the physical addition of “personhood” which is a phony definition.

Stan said...

"I argue the facts of human existence, and the common objective morality that all humans have value which no other human should devalue, much less kill."

Exactly, you pretend that 'your' definition of what it means to be human is the right one.”


Not opinion, FACT. And you agreed to it, because it is biological FACT, not a phony definition as is “personhood”.

”It is a form of elitism, where you impose your views on others in order to shame them, to make them feel wrong.”

Nice try, but a complete failure. When it comes to killing humans, the morality is clear, except to the “Choose to Kill Your Progeny” Crowd. Killing humans which are defined as killable is, in fact, wrong, and if you argue against that – and you are – then you are the one who is elite enough to determine who is and is not killable. That is a fact. It is what you advocate: by defining personhood as X, it is OK to kill humans who are not X. It has been done to death: “useless eaters”; “genetic disasters”; “mentally unfit”; “culturally dystopian”; etc. etc. It’s all the same philosophy and worldview. An acceptable “Person” is definable by an elite class, and all humans who are not “acceptable persons” are evolutionary drains, and social parasites, therefore, they are killable.

It’s all the exact same philosophy. Abortion is just the lift-off portion of the trajectory.

”This is what conservatives lawmakers have been doing. They use emotions by accusing women of literally killing another human being when they get an abortion.

Actually, the accusation is against those like yourself who make up phony definitions of Personhood and “meaningless blobs of cells” and other fables which are used to justify the killing. And it is killing, killing a unique, living human, innocently living at a necessary point in her human development. Denial of that obvious physical, biological fact is as intellectually perverse as it gets.

”I think we all agree that killing humans is wrong (save some exceptional cases such as self-defense of course) but the debate around abortion is not about killing humans;”

And this is the completely phony claim which is necessary in order to justify the shredding of the unique, living human at the normal stage of human development – for the convenience of the mother or her boyfriend.

”… that's what the anti-choice crowd wants it to be about. “

You said it wrong: here’s the correct statement: “that’s what the Choice to Kill One’s Progeny” crowd wants to avoid, because it is fact and it cannot be avoided with claims that it is “emotion”, rather than biological, scientific fact.

Stan said...

”It's using the emotional response most, if not all, of use have regarding killing. We don't want to do it, collaborate in doing it and certainly not be victim of it. And that's what you do in the next sentence:

"you do, indeed, declare a specific set of humans at a specific time in the normal development of human life, to be killable. KILLABLE. It’s your position. Live with it and defend your morality instead of pretending that it is immoral to defend human life."

You can continue to claim that, all day long if you want, but it means absolutely nothing to me, nor to anyone who is in favor of safe and legal abortions.”


Of course it has no meaning to you. You have rejected common morality and created your own, which you cherish and defend with phony definitions of Personhood and Appeals to Emotion which are asserted against biological scientific fact. These fallacies are accepted because the Right To Kill is part of the cherished elitism which infects rejectionist Atheism.

” There is no human being killed during an abortion.”

Wupps. Now you are defining a human “BEING” as something other than a genetically unique, living human at a normal, necessary stage of living a human life. And below, you deny what you previously agreed to, which is that HUMAN development of unique individuals consist of fertilized eggs and their normal development in the uterus. Now you deny them “human-ness”.

”Yes, there are human CELLS being killed, if you insist on using the word 'kill', but they are still not 'a' human.

So along with defining when Personhood is physically installed into an embryonic stage human, you ALSO have the ability to define when the human can be called a human! That is quite a lot of responsibility, an awesome, if self-anointed, moral authority over other creatures who maybe are and maybe are NOT human, depending on your judgment. The ultimate eugenics statement. And the characteristic of a god, right here on Earth. Congratulations on your abilities, they are awesome.

And I must say, I love the following self-serving convolution:

”Defending life, for everyone, is actually what the pro-choice side is doing…”

Really! Killing embryonic humans is “defending life”! Tell me more!

”… by trying to make the lives of people alive today, and future generations', better.”

Yes. Eugenics marches on: killing makes the future better. And You get to decide who is killable.

”Forcing people to have kids when they don't want to is not making life better for anyone.”

So killing the embryonic human makes life better, but not for the embryonic human, which is sacrificial. The sacrifice for the benefit of humanity sounds very religious in a very primitive way. And somehow, that never worked out before, either.

Stan said...

” It only serves some emotional response that people have when they see the 'miracle' of human development in action.”

And every evolutionist knows that humans are just another group of accidental mammals.

They look at that fetus that looks like a human and feel like a human is being killed. But it is not a human. Not at all.

It’s very good that you have illuminated your eugenic position here. There is no longer any question about your ability to decide who is and is not a) human; b) a person; c) killable.


”It's only by twisting the definition of what it means to be human that the anti-choice crowds succeeds in emotionally convincing others that abortion is actually killing people.”

Actually the correct term is “untwisting”, and actually using rationality and biological science to make the observation of human-ness, vs. personal corruption of the definition in order to justify killing.

”Here’s an argument made in the distant past, which you also hated, being jealous of your ability to legally kill:

1. If [females are a protected Victimhood Class], THEN [they should not be killed]."

Well, you disagree that females are a protected class, since you clearly state all the time that you don't think there should be any such class. Hence, you don't accept the first premise of your own argument. So what's the point of continuing it?”


Can’t defend an argument made from your own standpoint, eh? Of course not.

”But there is more wrong to it anyway, as it also refers to the notion of 'killing', which is a non-sequitur. Again, it's not about trying to kill a person”

Perfect. That is the correct eugenic position. Well done.

"1. To kill a pregnant woman two murders, one for the woman, one for the fetus."

Same thing again.”


Legally false, in every state of the union. Double homicide is charged in the killing of a woman and her fetus.

”There is really just 1 argument over and over again: abortion kills a human. But this depends on the subjective, emotionally-based, definition of what it means to be human.

You agreed to it before you denied. Reread.

”Hence, the arguments have no weight. They are not invalid; they are actually perfectly reasonable arguments, but only once the notion of a human being anything starting at conception.”

Presumably you are not referring to your own arguments here (not clear). At any rate, the notion of you having the ability to discern the moment of Personhood, or the moment of human-ness which is being installed somehow into a human during normal development is patently absurd. But it is necessary for the maintenance of the AtheoLeftist elitist worldview in which the common animal, homo sapiens sapiens, is not considered to have value until value is installed according to the principles defined and dictated by AtheoLeftism. And that is simply dictated by the AtheoLeft, of course, because that is where the ability to define and dictate resides.

Stan said...

”"That is the first time an Atheist has claimed this that I can recall. Where do you find your Objective Truth, then; what is the source? What is the moral authority of the source?"

I must have told you no less than 100 times that I believe in both objective truth and objective morality. (And I might even be exaggerating the number; just look at the other thread, on which I reply back soon btw but I take more time for that more complex philosophical topic, and you will see 20 references to 'objective' among my words.) Basically, there are 2 distinct things; you seem to mix them together here. All Atheists would agree with the notion of objective truth, I think, but definitely not all Atheists agree about objective morality. Some claim that morality is always subjective; others claim that it is objective. This was discussed on that other thread, yet it's the first time an Atheist has claimed this?”


I must not have been impressed with your prior assertions; I will check the “other thread” for the objective source for objective Truth and objective morality (denied by all Nietzscheans, of course).

”You claim Objective Truth and Moral Authority for permission to kill based on a phony definition of what a human consists of – just like the millions of Atheists before you. You have to justify that claim, and it will certainly be interesting to see you do it.

It’s your claim: justify it. Go ahead."

Objective means that it does not depend on the opinion of someone.”


Then it cannot be your opinion or your definition; it has to be empirical, unless it is grounded in an absolute source.

”This is the huge contradiction that I always run into on the Theistic side. On the one hand, some sort of conscious being, a god, is needed to provide a moral framework but, on the other hand, it is claim that objective moral truths exist.”

Then your understanding of “objective” is tainted by Equivocation. On the one hand, it’s “not dependent upon opinion”; on the other hand it is a material object (“objective”) and cannot be non-material as in from a deity.

”This is a contradiction, as the moral truths that the deity would prescribe would be, by definition, the subjective views of that deity.”

Yet they would be objectively true for humans, not deriving from human opinion as do Atheist pretentions of morality.

”It is simpler when it comes to Objective Truth, where claims, any claims, don't depend on the subjective views of conscious beings. Things are what they are. They are not what they are not. And any truth claims are based on these notions.”

Objective Truth: All humans must start as unique genetic individuals in the form of fertilized eggs; no human can come into adulthood without having done so. Life comes only from prior life; it is not installed at a later time, because the egg - embryo develops on its own with sustenance and protection of the mother. Biological fact. Kindly go ahead and deny it so we can get on with the eugenics conversation.

Stan said...

” We, as humans, try to assess which claims are true, or not, as we can certainly create claims that are either. No god needed here to explain any of that.”

Nope. Just biological fact, cum actual logic.

”Plus, it's a contradiction, as you have yourself mentioned before that there are in fact some Atheists that disagree with abortion.”

That’s your “contradiction”? For every million Atheists who believe they have moral authority to kill, there is one, maybe two who don’t believe that?"

It does not matter how many; it's a logical statement. It's either true of false that ALL Atheists believe abortion is wrong.”


I didn’t say ALL Atheists; I do say the overwhelming preponderance of Atheists, though. And including you, given your eugenics argumentation here.

”The answer is 'false'. The implication is thus that Atheism does not directly link to a support for abortion.”

The answer is statistically valid beyond any possibility of rationally deniability. This argument is without merit, because the intent is to completely decouple the overwhelming tendency of Atheists to become elitist, anti-rationalist, and morally iconoclastic to the point of radicalism and eugenics.

”And this has no bearing on the fact that Theists also believe that abortions are acceptable.”

It’s time for you to provide evidence for that claim. Which philosophical theists take that position? The “Liberal Christians”, who are de facto Atheists posing as Christian while denying all metaphysical existence? Under what specific Christian theological argument is killing one’s progeny considered theologically sound?

”This latter point is much stronger of course; it proves beyond doubt that it's not Atheism alone that relates to abortion.”

Not until you show that your claim is valid: there is a theological theory which claims that killing one’s progeny is considered a sound theological practice.

"Atheism is an enabler for your elitism. Like the light switch on the wall doesn’t create light but it enables it, Atheism doesn’t create elitism, it merely sets the conditions for the Atheist to THINK he’s elite, and the self-deception tumbles from there."

Cute insult... and you pretend I am the one who keeps using Tu Toque fallacies, etc... As I keep mentioning, it's hard to ignore these commentaries Stan. Anyway...


Not an insult; it is fact as seen from your commenting. And you don’t attempt to refute it, you just call it an insult… and yet you do maintain that you have your own capability for determining which humans are persons and which humans are humans, so that you can designate the class of killable humans. If that is not elitism, then there is no such thing as elitism.

Stan said...

Final thought. Your fluctuation between "personhood" and "human-ness" in your definition of who is killable indicates to me that you probably wrote the first part at a different time from the last part.

During that time, if that delay is what happened, you changed your own moral definition from the first part to the last part. And that, in turn, demonstrates fully the subjectivity and volatility of your moral position.

Given that your moral position is not fixed, it cannot be an objective moral rule, nor is it based in disciplined deduction nor material evidence - both of which go against one human denying another human either her humanity or her personhood - especially for the purpose of shredding her.

If you care to argue deductively, let's go there. If you have material evidence of humanity or personhood being installed at a specific point in human gestation, then let's go there.

Otherwise it is just your fluctuating opinion of who is killable and who is not.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Stan,

Starting from the end, no, I did not change my opinion midway and I did not write the last comments here in 2 different sessions. It was written quickly though, so that could explain any confusion that I inserted. But, it's also clear that we disagree very strongly on the issue of abortion and that the main reason why we disagree is not the reason you argue for. As I mentioned above, it's not about whether we should decide 'who' can be killed or not; it's about where in the human development stage do the cells go from 'it' to 'who', from just cells with the potential to be a human to an actual human (with "personhood" and "human-ness") that has the right to life.

Logically speaking, statements are either true, or not-true. Statements about morality talk about moral actions or immoral actions. There is no in-between. However, it's not always easy to spot which is which, and humans disagree all the time on which is which. In other words, some situations are definitely back-or-white, but many are somewhere in between. Abortion is at times clearly moral, but not always, so it's not a black-or-white topic. But the self-labeled pro-life crowd would like to put it that way.

Here's a way to illustrate the dilemma:

1) Spermatozoids/eggs contain genetic material; a random set of chromosomes from a male/female. On their own, they cannot even potentially become an independent human being. Nobody argues that these should be kept alive for future use; abortion does not come up. And it's obviously not possible to do so anyway, especially not with the billions of spermatozoid that a single male produces over his lifetime. There is no 'who' being killed when an egg/spermatozoid is taken on its own.

2) When a woman is pregnant with a baby, it happens quite often that the baby will be born before the ~40 week mark, the normal average gestation period. At that time, and for many weeks before, the baby is fully formed and able to live outside the womb. Abortion does not apply here either, just like #1, but for a different reason: the process is called a c-section and the baby lives. It would require the explicit killing of the baby to make sure it does not survive. Of course, as you mentioned on another thread, there are some people who apparently want this to happen, but that's not about abortion anymore at this point. There is no abortion once the fetus is fully viable, the baby is a 'who' that clearly has the right to live.

...but in between, that's where it gets a bit more complicated.

Hugo Pelland said...

3) The first one I will list is the easiest, in my opinion: at the time of conception. Because we understand human development very well, (and any sexual reproduction actually, since it's all the same), we know that the result is a combination of the female egg, which has half the number of chromosomes of a full human, with the male spermatozoid, which also has half the number of chromosomes. Together, they form a random combination, which is almost certainly unique because of the statistical improbability of combining the exact same genes twice, and the small mutations that can happen during cell division. This process can be triggered naturally, or artificially in a laboratory, or even just theoretically: take a spermatozoid from any male, take an egg from any woman, and combine their genetic code to get an idea of a new potential human being. In the latter case, that human would never exist since it's just a thought experiment, while in the first 2 it could lead to a human, if the initial cell is nurtured in a womb and grow successfully to become a viable fetus, an actual human being. But, at the time of conception, there is no 'who' yet; there is nobody to talk about. It's just 1 of a quasi-infinite number of valid sequence of human DNA. Moreover, the notion of 'time of conception' can also extend to hours, and maybe a couple of days, after conception, where the initial cell has had time to reproduce itself thousands of times already, but without forming anything resembling a human yet.

4) The next one, first trimester of development, is also easy but emotional manipulation kicks-in in full force from the so-called "pro-life" side. Here, we are talking about a something that is not, at all, a person yet, but the embryo can start to reassemble one because of the formation of organs, and even a beating hearth at the threshold between embryo and fetus. During the first trimester of a pregnancy, quite a lot happens basically and, the later it is, the more human-like the embryo is. However, there is absolutely no way that this embryo would survive outside of the mother's womb, there is no working nervous system and thus no 'who' to talk about. This is definitely still just some pack of cells, a lot of them, but not a human person. Moreover, that's when the vast majority of natural miscarriage occur and abortions performed during the first trimester are thus not much different from natural ones. Numbers vary and are hard to estimate, as many women don't even know they were pregnant, but it is said that only 30% to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.

5) Now, the tough one... what should we do if a woman wants an abortion past the 3-month mark? If it's close enough, say during the 4th, it still pretty much the same situation as in #4, but the now fetus is getting very close to be what we should rightfully call a human, a person, who can live on their own. The most premature babies to have ever been born were only in their 20s, as in less than 30 weeks of development and thus only 5-to-6 months old. On the other hand, some abortions, without medical reasons, are performed up to the 20th week, and even a bit more, overlapping with the youngest babies to have survive. At this point, it's a very grey area. Personally, I am not comfortable either way and would let doctors and other medical/ethics professional weight in. Doing everything possible to save a 20-something fetus has a very low chance of success and can actually lead to a life of misery of the person who survives. But it's possible, and thus falls under the person category. I would tend to stay cautious and give a right to life to fetus as soon as they hit the 20-week, 5-month, mark, perhaps even a bit before and we can be accurate enough. We are now talking about someone, a who, in my opinion. Trying to get rid of that fetus is killing and should not be acceptable. But...

Hugo Pelland said...

6) There is one case remaining. What if the mother's health is at risk past the 20-week mark, where we can start to talk about a baby, a person, and not just a thing? This is even more complicated now because we are talking about an abortion, yes, but one which involved literally killing a person. To me, it seems that this is a different debate altogether. It's not about a personal choice anymore, it's not only about a woman's right to decide what to do with her body. This is a situation where compromises have to be made; both the mother and the baby should be given the best chance of survival possible. In the end, I would tend to side with the mother's life first, as she is a fully grown human with thoughts, feelings, dreams, and who can potentially have more babies later on. But this does not, in any way, make the choice easy as we are basically talking about killing 1 of 2 people, in order to save at least 1. Plus, picking the baby, unfortunately, often means that both will have a high risk of dying. In short, I hope I never have to personally make that decision and would never judge anyone choosing either way.

To conclude, I will quote a few lines of your last 10 comments Stan. This might help clarify my position and the arguments I am presenting in favor of safe and legal abortions, with the 6 situations listed above as framework.

Stan said...
"You referred to the embryo or zygote or whatever name might be given to the fertilized cell attached to the uterus as “meaningless”. Now we can establish that you understand that this cell is human, with its own life and identity, is growing through a necessary phase of human development. That, according to you, is meaningless in the decision to kill that human."

The embryo or zygote is "not" a person; it has no right to life and no identity. Only a fetus can be labeled as person, and only a fetus can be 'killed', once it is deemed to be an actual person. Something meaningless cannot be 'killed', or 'murdered', by definition, as it is not a person. The only acceptable cases where abortion 'is' about killing were explained under #6, and are limited to rare medical situations.

In other words, all humans went through the phases of human development, but not everything that goes through 'some' of the phases of human development is a human. What was discussed under #1-3-4 are examples of things that go through some of the human development process, without being humans.

" find the time in the gestation where the “person” organ is installed, and declare that to be the cut-off for killing the developing human, thereby depriving her of her life. Obviously, the ability to detect the material “Personhood Organ” is something that only the “Right To Kill” advocates have. That’s an astonishing ability. And in fact it Does Not Exist. There is no more onerous ploy than to claim the ability to deny personhood to another human."

Nobody is stating that it's simple, and there is no such thing as a 'person organ'. This is a use of ridicule in order to avoid a tough debate. As I keep mentioning, the pro-life side has nothing but emotions on their side. They point out to how embryos 'look' like babies, or how the embryo 'could' have been a human. But the question is whether the embryo 'is' a human at the time of abortion. The longer the gestation period the tougher the question becomes. But, the fact that we have the 2 extremes, as explained under #1 and #2, means that there is necessarily a cut-off. Using facts and reason, we can try to figure out the ethical way to find that cut-off and avoid killing humans.

Hugo Pelland said...

"Apparently then, infanticide a la’ Peter Singer (the moral-free ethics prof) is OK with you, too?"

No, not at all. The quote, which you misunderstood, was meant to illustrate that if someone attempts to label 'human' something which is not human at all then, yes, it makes it look like killing. If I label mosquitoes as humans, and then ask you: have you ever kill a mosquito? Does it mean that you did in fact kill a human if you answer yes? This is exactly the same thing here. The pro-life side defines embryos, or even just a single cell, as 'human'; they then equate the destruction of these cells with killing a human.

"The human inside the woman is a unique individual, living through the development stage: it is not “the same as a fully formed human” and it is fully human"

Why?

This is what makes no sense with your position. And all of this really is just about that 1 question: why do you think that anything, literally anything, that is part of the human development process after conception is literally a human, a person, that can be killed?
We are talking about 1 cell at first, then a few, and then maybe something that starts to look like a person, as described under #4, but it is not a human that can survive before several more weeks.

Hugo Pelland said...

**Final thought / side note**
I purposely avoided anything not directly related to abortion, including the notion of objectivity. But, I must repeat that this is not what I think is my opinion, or a subjective view of morality that varies with the whim of the people. This is about figuring out what is 'the' moral choice in any given situation regarding pregnancy. Objectively, there are always moral choices and immoral choices, regardless of our opinion, but we don't always agree on what these objective moral truths are. The notion of whether such objectivity even exist, under Theism or Atheism, is irrelevant to the question here, and I thus hope to come back to it on the other thread, eventually.

Stan said...

Hugo,
I have opened up another discussion zone, this time for abortion discussion. It's near the top of the Left hand column. I placed my response to your comments here in the post text at the intro to that discussion zone.