The AtheoLeftist abortionistas have just one tactic, even though they fill that tactic with a variety of fallacies and logic deviations. The tactic is to (a) deny that a certain class of humans is actually human; then (b) define that class as a Kill Class, which allows the inhabitants of that class to be killed at will.
The second part of the tactic, part (b) is all that they want to discuss, and they attempt to use the first part, part (a), to justify the second part. And they refuse to admit that they have actually performed the devaluation upon which they depend, and they do that by pretending that (a) is obviously true, regardless of their inability to provide empirical evidence to support their claim.
There are numerous logical defects in this anti-rational process, one of which stands out above and beyond the rest. That defect is that by defining certain natural human states to be non-human, they have automatically brought upon themselves the task of deciding for that non-human class exactly what point in the human development the non-human becomes human, and escapes the tacit death sentence which the AtheoLeft has visited upon him/her.
It actually makes no difference, zero, what point they choose to elevate the non-human to human. What matters is that they must make an arbitrary decision, and that decision proves that they did in fact devalue the humans arbitrarily into a select class of “non-humanity” in order that they be designated a Killable Class. It is not possible to deny that the selection of the boundary between non-human-Killable, and human-non-killable is purely arbitrary based on nothing whatsoever but the desire of the particular AtheoLeftist in the discussion to include ages 0–X, where the AtheoLeftist gets to define the value of X. But there is no empirical boundary at which X is found; it is merely the opinion of the AtheoLeftist; i.e. it is purely arbitrary.
The Kill Category of humans [0-X] then is merely an artifact of the imagination of the AtheoLeftist who chooses a non-zero value. This renders the entire process to be, not empirical in even the wildest sense, but ideological.
When asked what enables their right to determine a non-zero value for X, the AtheoLeftist ignores the question, despite having the question thrust upon him repeatedly. This question is, of course, fatal to the presumption of rationality on the one hand, and to the issue of the AtheoLeftist’s actual lack of moral eliteness and Right To Kill, on the other. The AtheoLeftist cannot answer that question without revealing the reality of his motivation for developing the Kill Class of humans [0-X].
So the response, if any, is to either repeat the arguments (note 1) for the actual material existence of X, for which they never produce empirical evidence, or they attempt the Tu Quoque response by attacking the questioners Right to question their moral eliteness.
But although the particulars change in each discussion, the fundamentals are the same: (a) devalue human life and put it into a Killable Class; (b) declare the Killable Class to be killable at will.
The justifications never pass any logic test; the resulting attacks on the questioner of their moral right always are both false Tu Quoques and Ad Hominems.
Abortion is killing. It is sanctioned by the false claims which are used to devalue a certain class of humans. It is implemented by declaring the Killable Class of humans to be killable at will. That’s all that abortion is.
Notes
Note 1: The most illustrative arguments are those which puport to be increasing the "goods" for the woman, or her family, or society. This argument goes thus:
If [party Y is killed], THEN [life will be better for A, B, and C; (the "goods" have been increased)].
Where Y = Killable Class of Humans [0-X].
Obviously, y may be defined however the AtheoLeft wishes, since it already is.
32 comments:
Always the same starting point without any justification; conception must be considered the starting point of any fully human entity regardless of the arbitrary nature of that choice.
Want resources? Here's a good starting point:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/tp/abortionmyths.htm
10. "Human life begins at conception."
False. Human life actually begins prior to conception, because each sperm and egg cell is a living thing. It is more relevant to discuss when sentience, or self-awareness, begins. In 2000, the British House of Lords established a Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience, which estimated that higher-level brain development begins to commence at about 23 weeks.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/abortion.htm
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/fetal-pain-lie-how-phony-science-took-over-abortion-debate
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/11/the_20_week_abortion_ban_is_driven_by_polls_not_by_the_science_of_fetal.html
http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp
Good post, although it's worth noting that every woman who has an abortion (or person in favor of such) isn't atheist. Rather, atheism is but one means of rationalizing it due to moral relativism.
Choices,
A list of Atheist opinions is not the same thing as an empirical study; surely you know the difference. The reason that you do not provide an empirical study determining when humanness inheres after conception is because you cannot: humanness is not a testable attribute (more on that below).
Your responses are now merely Tu Quoques rather than providing any disciplined reasoning. For example, you have not even discussed the reasoning which has been presented; rather you attempt to invert the concept and redirect it at the author of the concept.
That is not reasoning, it is simple fallacy. Let me simplify the concept by giving specifics.
First, there are no events which are objectively testable or measurable by which the fully differentiated human can objectively be declared non-differentiated, non-living, non-human, save one: that objectively deterministic event is conception, which occurs at the fertilization of the egg.
There are no other measurable benchmarks of "humanness" by which an objective test can be performed which allow the determination of "non-humanness" to exist just prior to the event, v.s. humanness to exist just post-event. Humanness is not a testable parameter, it is an arbitrary concept which would not even be debatable except under the desire to kill the human at arbitrary points in its development. It is purely the desire to kill the human which necessitates the arbitrary redefinition of what it means to be human during the various stages of human development.
Thus there is just the one objective point in the spectrum of humanness; that point is conception.
Further, conception is the point beyond which the entire human spectrum of development occurs for the fully differentiated human being. And it starts exactly at that point, which is objectively defined, not arbitrarily defined.
But even though that is obvious, it is not even the point. Your argument is false completely outside of the details of the above discussion of human development. (in fact the deviation into the details of human development is a blatant Red Herring, on top of leading to false definitions of "humanness").
Your argument consists of this:
1. Any attribution of humanness to [egg/embryo/zygote/preborn/born/child/adolescent/etc] is merely arbitrary;
2. That is the case for the attribution of humanness to the fertilized egg which is in the natural process of development.
3. Therefore, since all attributions are arbitrary, then I can attribute any stage/age of the preborn or born to be the boundary between human and non-human, with the non-human to be killable at will.
And that merely confirms the point being made in the article: abortionistas are desperate to defend their right to arbitrarily create Kill Classes based on their own arbitrarily designated boundaries between human and non-human humans, in order that they may subsequently designate that "non-human human" into a Kill Class to be killable at will and without restraint.
The defense of arbitrariness-as-a-feature-of-humanness inveighing the right to kill is absurd.
Invoking arbitrariness as a Right To Kill is a purely murderous concept: it is barbarism.
So there are two defects in your case:
1. Humanness is not arbitrary;
2. Even if it were (and it is demonstrably not), arbitrariness is not a case for killing, except under barbarism.
Choices:
You steadfastly continue to ASSERT the same thing, ignoring the argument that HAS been given, to wit:
"Always the same starting point without any justification; conception must be considered the starting point of any fully human entity regardless of the arbitrary nature of that choice."
I have given the justification. Mary Elizabeth Williams (in her Salon article) gave a less formal, more intuitive version but still essentially the same justification. It is simply that the ESSENCE of "humanness" comes into EXISTENCE at the moment of conception. One cannot categorize the same stage of fetal development as “scraping out a bunch of cells” AND “the baby” or “this kid,” depending solely on whether the potential mother wants the "it" or the "fully human" being to be born. Mary Elizabeth Williams properly calls that viewpoint "illogically contradictory."
You studiously avoid acknowledging that rational justification.
WHY?
Consider the British House of Lords investigation. By your own terminology of "estimated" you expose the amorphous and arbitrary nature of the LEGAL (NOT NECESSARILY MORAL) decision regarding when an "it" changes to a "fully human" being. Additionally, that "estimate" concerns a putative "starting point" of "higher level brain development" as the arbitrarily chosen benchmark for determining whether an "it" or a "fully human" being exists. That benchmark is itself arbitrarily chosen. It could just as easily have been the start of development of any other PART of a "fully human" being that was chosen to provide the permissible killing point. That it cannot be determined precisely illustrates the amorphous and arbitrary nature of that criteria. If there is some room for error in the "estimate," then any abortion in the near vicinity of that "estimate" runs the risk of killing a "fully human" being instead of an "it." I anticipate the response: SO WHAT?!?
Just for the sake of argument:
Let's suppose that the argument regarding conception (a fertilized egg) as the beginning point of a "fully human" being IS arbitrarily chosen.
You still have not engaged the central argument:
(1) A "fully human" (ESSENCE) being (EXISTENCE) begins at conception. Mary Elizabeth Williams (in her Salon article) concurs with that position.
(2) Mary Elizabeth Williams also asserts an "unrestricted right" to kill what she herself has declared to be a "fully human" being, at any time and for any reason whatsoever (or no reason).
A "fully human" being, a life worth sacrificing.
(3) I have maintained that her position is IMMORAL. I have NOT tried to make the case that her position is ILLEGAL.
Please make the case that her position is NOT IMMORAL.
Please note that YOU have made the case that the only justification for the MORALITY of killing is solely conditional on whether, at a particular stage of development, an "it" or a "fully human" being exists at that moment.
You have not addressed how an "it" magically transforms into a "fully human" being. Legal fiat does not constitute moral grounds for determining whether something is an "it" (and therefore killable) or a "fully human" being (and therefore NOT killable).
Please don't evade the issue by claiming abortion is NOT "killing." Whether you consider it an "it" or a "fully human" being, whether you consider it MORAL to kill an "it" but not a "fully human" being, does not change the fact that in an abortion, some living thing IS being killed.
"False. Human life actually begins prior to conception, because each sperm and egg cell is a living thing"
This is incorrect, but probably not how you think. Life is conveyed by one life to the next; that is a fundamental premise of evolution, (which stops at abiogenesis). Sperm and egg are extensions of the parent, and contain the parent's DNA; they are not new life. Life is transmitted by the combining of sperm and egg. The life in sperm and egg prior to conception are not differentiated new humans, nor do they individually develop, ever, into the next generation of humans, unless they are combined properly into the act called conception. Only then has the next, fully individuated, differentiated human life begin.
Implying that because sperm and egg are alive that somehow that conveys the Right To Kill the new human life that results from their co-reactions at conception is false.
There is only one way to justify the killing of a human which exists at her natural point of development along the spectrum of human existence, and that is to arbitrarily deny her the right to life, and place her into a Kill Category for killing at will.
Part II:
"Human life actually begins prior to conception, because each sperm and egg cell is a living thing."
No, "fully human" beings do NOT exist prior to the fertilized egg. The component parts required to form a "fully human" being exist (necessarily) prior to the beginning of existence of a "fully human" being. That "humanness" does not inhere in any individual part should be obvious. That also destroys the argument that any specific development stage of only part of a "fully human" being constitutes the determining issue of "humanness."
Try again...
Stan:
You and I seem to be mind-reading! We're posting simultaneously on essentially the same points. Although it may seem like I'm copying you, I'm not.
Independently making the same argument... interesting. Maybe that's because valid logic always reaches just one logically true and valid conclusion, with all others failing. S'pose?
Part I:
I would certainly trust that valid logic would consistently reach the same logically true and valid conclusion. Otherwise, how could logic itself ever be trusted to produce truth statements?!?
I'd like to explore a somewhat different argument, leaving aside for the moment the MORAL question posed by the "illogically contradictory" position taken by Mary Elizabeth Williams.
Part II:
Consider the following:
What is the fundamental reason for this entire discussion/debate/disagreement?
Let's ASSUME (merely for the sake of the argument) that no one wants to have an abortion - period.
The immediate consequence of that assumption is that there is no debate, no establishment of kill/no kill dates or conditions, no law, and no moral questions to be addressed. If no one desires it and no one does it, there is no issue to be resolved.
The fundamental reason that some legal criteria was deemed to be necessary in the first place is to establish a "right" to kill a category of "fully human" being without adverse LEGAL consequences for those who desired a "right" to kill, but who were too morally squeamish to advocate an "unrestricted right to kill" "fully human" beings at any time for whatever reason (or no reason).
If any and all beings sharing "humanness" are considered to be protected by morality (even if NOT by legality) as "human qua human" from indiscriminate killing, then any legal fictions created to remove that distinction of "humanness" from any particular class of "fully human" beings are not only arbitrarily drawn but are a violation of morality.
Part III:
(Consider the NAZI application of eugenics to the legally designated "inferior" "subhuman" "nonhuman" stocks which were used LEGALLY for experimentation and indiscriminately killed. The primary defense argument used at the Nuremburg trials was that those performing in accordance with German law could not be found guilty of "crimes against humanity," since under German law, those who supposedly had been "mistreated" or "killed" were not accorded LEGAL status as "fully human" beings, and hence there was NO "crime against humanity." They were found GUILTY LEGALLY anyway.)
But the legal argument, made on the basis of arbitrarily selected criteria (whether deemed "scientific" or not) does NOT suffice to establish kill classes of "fully human" beings. The entire world (excepting those good little NAZIs and those Progressives who were and still are enamored of the eugenics movement) condemned the indiscriminate killing of "fully human" beings, regardless of the legal fictions created to "justify" it.
It would be "illogically contradictory" (to borrow Mary Elizabeth Williams' terminology) to condemn the NAZIs for killing "fully human" beings LEGALLY and then to pass legal fictions providing a (restricted or unrestricted) "right" to do exactly the same thing.
Therefore, an alternative had to be found which would declassify certain stages of human development as being NOT "fully human" thereby providing LEGAL cover and avoiding those squeamish moral issues. That "science" was invoked to provide LEGAL cover does not change the rationale for invoking it in the first place. It would be circular logic to insist that "I want an unrestricted right to kill whatever it is that I don't want; science provides a "justification" for declassifying the class I wish to kill by differentiating specific development stages as killable or not killable; therefore there is a scientific basis for killing the class in question." Sorry, but that just does not follow.
Science does not address the "OUGHT" of morality - period. Science cannot even establish with even reasonable certainty the demarcation point between "killable" and not killable" as a function of time from conception. Even the moment of conception cannot be precisely established by science qua science. However, the event of conception IS objectively definable.
If the NAZIs could designate "scientifically" that there are various LEGAL kill classes (and yet they were condemned MORALLY by the rest of the world, including those Progressives who still continue that identical philosophy), then those who continue to assert a "scientific" and "legal" basis for the establishment of morally acceptable kill classes share the same moral philosophy as the NAZIs.
That those who desire the killing have already established a legal "right" to do it provides no moral justification for it whatsoever.
I am in full agreement with your comment just above. However, I predict that you will be charged with the "NAZI Fallacy" which is the false doctrine that referring to NAZIs automatically ends the conversation and delegitimizes the comment.
That sort of fallacy is a rhetorical diktat and has no bearing on logic. It is necessary to point that out in advance to those who consider their rhetoric to be the standards of logic, rather than bowing to Aristotelian disciplined, grounded deduction.
Stan, I still don't see your defense of why human life is to be considered as starting at conception. Even sources that agree with restrictions on abortion (which I agree with too btw) are not able to convince you that a human life is meaningless at conception. Assertions after assertions, no defense... it is thus impossible to discuss the details as to why/when abortion should be legal, you prefer to accuse othets of killing, the only emotional argument you have apparently.
The good news is that you confirm that we should not be too worried about abortion ever becoming completely illegal.
Let's try another argument.
WARNING! If you are morally squeamish, you may find yourself puking before you finish this post.
If you are an Atheoleftist, I suggest the antidote is to stare intently at the AtheoLeftist moral Void and remind yourself that, according to the "Bright" Dr. Richard Dawkins:
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Put on your "big girl, indifference" panties and let's proceed.
I insert Stan's argument in the note to this topic:
Note 1: The most illustrative arguments are those which purports to be increasing the "goods" for the woman, or her family, or society. This argument goes thus:
If [party Y is killed], THEN [life will be better for A, B, and C; (the "goods" have been increased)].
Where Y = Killable Class of Humans [0-X].
Obviously, y may be defined however the AtheoLeft wishes, since it already is.
Given that we can arbitrarily "redefine" (more correctly, merely re0label) whatever it is between [0-X] as NOT "fully human," then we can assist Dr. Dawkin's utilitarian objective of reducing the suffering in the world by reducing the rampant starvation evidenced in nature, and particularly among those who are classified as "fully human" beings. We can thereby "increase the goods" available to the woman, her family and the rest of society, achieving our utilitarian goal.
Let's arbitrarily re-label whatever it is to be killed between [0-X] as "meat." (Under the AtheoLeftist viewpoint we are allowed to re-label as needed to achieve the desired objective. The ends justify the means.)
Other than vegans and vegetarians, those who enjoy "meat" will have an increased supply (freely available form the local grower and producer) by taking the resulting "meat" and making it available to consumers.
There will be a nice variety of "meat" available at virtually no cost, thereby reducing the starvation so rampant in nature. There will be "white meat," "dark meat," "Asian meat," "Mexican meat," - the possibilities are endless. There will be "baby back ribs," "thighs," "breasts," "brains," etc.
Think creatively about how we can obtain the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Surely there can be no principled objection to sharing "meat" with those who are starving.
(Perhaps that's the viewpoint of Our Dear and Glorious Leader Kim Jong Oon, who allegedly fed his uncle to a pack of ravenous dogs. after all, the dogs were starving, and "meat" is "meat.")
If your mind reels in horror from that argument, then please at least consider the implications of designating whatever it is [0-X] that you are advocating killing.
"Assertions after assertions, no defense..."
This, for the Nth time is false: you have been given the reasoning. in several different ways. You refuse to address it. And you claim that there is none with the nebulous, phony claim "assertions...".
Either address the actual arguments which you are given by both myself and by Robert, or admit that you can't and therefore refuse to.
"it is thus impossible to discuss the details as to why/when abortion should be legal,"
If you cannot glean that arbitrarily declaring Kill Classes and then declaring them killable at will is uncivilized and should not be a part of civilized society is a claim that it should be illegal, then there is no hope of communication with you except to accept your claim to the moral authority to kill, the source of which you refuse to address.
"...you prefer to accuse othets of killing, the only emotional argument you have apparently."
The case against phony redefinition in order to attain the moral authority to develop Kill Classes, and declaring anyone in those Kill Classes to be killable has been made to death. That action is both irrational and immoral.
You cannot argue against it; therefore you declare that it is not possible to discuss it.
Bullshit.
The case is made; defeat it with logic or empirical grounded data, or admit that you can't.
"...are not able to convince you that a human life is meaningless at conception. "
Another two part failure of logic, not including your admission that there is human life at conception.
First, even the abortionista in the original argument admits that human life has value; if the human life is wanted, it is endowed with extreme value by the parents. If it is not wanted, then it is devalued by your algorithm or one like it. The only difference is the opinion of the parent(s).
Second, you have now opened up another excuse for killing humans: defining their lives as "meaningless". This opens up a number of categories for the self-endowed morally authorized to kill: there are the homeless, the orphans, the widows, any of those who we, the elite, decide have lives which we deem meaningless, including political infidels, ideologically non-congenial - the list is very, very long. And it has already been done... to death, by the AtheoLeftist Utopians of the 20th Century. Oh yes there are entire categories of subcivilizations which have meaningless lives; under the Kill Category of Meaninglessness, many cultures are at risk.
What is your next excuse for maintaining the Right To Devalue Humans into Kill Classes, and declare them Killable at will?
And when will you address the source of your elite moral authority to do so?
Stan:
There is a local saying, predicated on my family:
"Where angels fear to tread, there go the Cobles!"
I am aware of the risk of being "tainted" by the NAZI fallacy charge. So be it... The argument still must be made, detailing the similarities in philosophies and the inevitable consequences of following that philosophy to its logical conclusion.
I think Nietzsche may have been the only AtheoLeftist philosopher who followed his philosophy into the black hole of the AtheoLeftist Void, emerging on the other side in an alternate universe of Anti-Rationality. This must have been the basis for the insanity he enjoyed for the last years of his life, but that's a different (although tangentially related) topic.
I find the "Hannibal Lecter" viewpoint to be totally nauseating, but (on the shaky grounds of atheism and consequentialism), it is not to be ruled "immoral" simply because, on that viewpoint, there are NO objective grounds for morals in the first or last place. Anything can be (and is) permissible.)
One cannot decry the position because of prohibitions against "cannibalism," simply because the "meat" has been declared by law a priori NOT to be "human," much less a "fully human" being.
A moral conundrum, indeed!
"Meat's meat, and man's gotta eat!"
Texas Chainsaw Murder.
there is no hope of communication with you except to accept your claim to the moral authority to declare conception as the starting point of human life, the source of which you refuse to address.
"your admission that there is human life at conception."
My bad. It's meaningless to discuss 'human life at conception' since it isn't human life yet. Fixed.
Bye
Part I:
Let's consider one more aspect of the "unrestricted right" to kill within the time period [0-X], where "0" is the moment of conception and "X" is the LEGAL "expiration date" of the "meat."
For the sake of argument, let's play pretend (I’ve got my “big boy” britches on ;) ) and assume that the time period [0-X] was "scientifically determined" and is therefore LEGAL.
Under the supposed "right" to kill the "meat" as defined between these two designated end points, the woman and "medical specialists" (who appropriately could be relabeled as "butchers," since they are in the "meat" slaughtering and cutting up business for a profit) has an "unrestricted right" to classify and kill the "meat" and to dispose of it as she wills.
Mary Elizabeth Williams makes no distinction between "meat" and "fully human" being during the LEGAL "open season" on "meat" production, in spite of the fact that SHE arbitrarily defines the beginning of "fully human" life at [0], the moment of conception. Consequently, her continued absolute assertion of the "unrestricted right" to produce "meat" for the good of the family does NOT hinge on whether SHE has decided to consider "whatever it is" as "meat" or whether she has decided that a "fully human" being is the "whatever it is" that is inside of the woman. She's Da Boss, and what she wants done is what's going to happen - ALWAYS. It is apparent that it makes no difference to her whether a "fully human" being can and is being killed. That's very cold, my dear!
Let's pretend (merely for the sake of this argument) that there are those in the "pro choice" ("meat" or "not meat" being the choice under question) camp who do NOT share Mary Elizabeth Williams' yearning for an "unrestricted right" to "meat" production, regardless of whether a "fully human" being exists at the moment of conception.
Let's assume that it DOES make a difference in the classification of "meat or not meat" based on the viewpoint that the potential mother's viewpoint solely determines whether it is "meat or not meat."
On the one hand, we have the "meat" crowd, who view anything between [0-X] that is UNWANTED (for whatever reason or no reason) as "meat." But, on the other hand, we have the exact same crowd claiming "not meat" during that same period [0-X], based solely on WANTING the "fully human being. Same time period, same people, different result based solely on their own desire - not "science qua science," not LEGAL fictions, not "the greater good" but - solely based on their own desire to either have it or not have it continue to exist (or NOT) as a "fully human" being. Oops, I guess that disposes of the argument that the decision is "scientifically" determined and NOT totally arbitrary.
But wait! It gets better.
Choices
”there is no hope of communication with you except to accept your claim to the moral authority to declare conception as the starting point of human life, the source of which you refuse to address.”
You are reduced to childish mimickry. This is the exact indication of being merely a troll, with zero intellectual capacity to produce disciplined argumentation to support your case. You have been presented the case against your desire to kill; defeat it rationally if you can. But it is obvious that all you have remaining in your thought process is the childishness demonstrated above.
"It's meaningless to discuss 'human life at conception' since it isn't human life yet. Fixed.
Not even a sad display; merely disgusting.
Last chance, prove it. Prove it. Prove it.
Very simple, just two words: prove it.
Just do it. Prove it. It's your assertion, your redefinition: Support your own assertion!
Or man up and admit that you can't.
Conversely, if you can’t or won’t prove it, and won’t admit it, then you are done here. I have no patience for child-men.
Part II:
Let’s assume that during the “open hunting season” [0-X] when the “meat” can be LEGALLY killed, the person desires the “it” in the uterus to BE a “fully human” being. VOILA! So let it be written, so let it be done. It’s a “fully human” being.
But wait! It gets even better than that!
Postulate (using that ever so “scientific” language that is REQURIED in order to justify killing “fully human” beings) that there are two (or more) shorter time periods within the overall “open hunting season” [0-X]. We will refer to the first time period as the “chemical phase” [0-T1] based on the use of abortifacients to rid the woman of the “meat.” The subsequent time period will be referred to as the “surgical phase” [T1-X] based on the use of surgical instruments, coat hangers or butcher’s knives to harvest the “meat.” (REMEMBER: by re-labeling, we can actually morph one of these things into something entirely different, so it really doesn’t matter which term we use; we can always re-label it into something a little more “palatable” to the sophisticated “meat” connoisseur.)
Now we consider the arbitrary decision to view the “whatever it is” during the “chemical phase” [0-T1] as a “fully human” being, i.e., the potential mother WANTS it to be a “fully human” being, and so it “automagically” becomes one. NO PROBLEMO!
But during the subsequent “surgical phase” [T1-X], she changes her mind: she now NO LONGER WANTS the formerly declared to be “fully human” being.
Does it now revert "automagically" back to the “meat” category or does establishing it during the earlier phase as a “fully human” being take precedence over the new desire to re-label it as “meat?”
Can this changing desire only "automagically" change the “whatever it is” ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME (i.e., is it a one-way process), or can the process flip-flop back and forth, regardless of the phase, again solely based on the desire (whim?) of the person who has the absolute control over that “meat or not meat” decision?
WOW! That certainly sounds MORAL(???) and LOGICALLY CONSISTENT to ME – N-O-T!!!
I'm so sorry "Choices" made the choice to leave before this argument. I think "she/he/it" might have finally figured out just how arbitrary and amorphous the "scientific consensus" really is.
Stan, here are some quotes. I wonder if reading them as a list will make you realize why you cannot be taken seriously:
1) zero intellectual capacity
2) your desire to kill
3) your thought process is the childishness
4) Not even a sad display; merely disgusting.
5) Last chance, prove it. Prove it. Prove it.
Very simple, just two words: prove it.
Just do it. Prove it.
6) man up
7) I have no patience for child-men.
Seven Ad hominem & repetitions... after I keep insisting that there is nothing to discuss. It could be interesting to discuss how to pick 'X' but you keep asserting that the 0-X concept you presented is killing a fully human life regardless of the 'X'. You say I presented nothing; go back to the DNA thought experiment I gave. You dismissed it without understanding... You are the one asserting that X must be 0, without justification, as if a valid set of DNA equates a fully human life.
this shows how little value life has for you. Killing 4 cells is just as bad as killing a 5-month foetus, or a 1-year old baby? You did avoid thought experiments such as saving a child vs rack of embryos, because reality is avoided in your worldview. No defense. Just dodges and assertions based on 1 idea: fully human lives beginning at conception. Period.
Bye for good, giving you the last word you seem to really really want. You're welcome. I am pretty sure nothing new will come up.
@Robert
Sorry but I read only 1 of your comment on the previous thread where you asked Stan to pat you on the back, or correct you if you wer e wrong. I figured it was thus pointless to read what you write and focused on Stan only.
Robert,
That is a great concept: "human"; then not "human"; then maybe "human" again. (Lather, rinse, repeat)...
But it is not reasonable to expect the AtheoLeftist abortionista to detect the fallacy and non-coherence contained therein; coherence is not the currency in which the self-designated morally superior deal. In fact, it gets in the way of their objectives as Consequentialists. We have seen here how easily they blow it off as trivial and of no value in their universe.
Choices,
I sincerely doubt that you are a Christian; never once did the term AtheoLeftist offend you. What offended you was merely this:
1. You were called out on every fallacy and trite excuse; your response was the incredibly juvenile mimickry Tu Quoque. Your response: ignore the irrationality and produce more of it.
2. I made a specific case against your position; Your response: you didn't argue it, you avoided it by calling it arbitrary, and wouldn't discuss it. Robert made a specific case against your position; your response: you ignored it.
3. When it was made perfectly clear that (a) it is the claimed moral prerogative of the abortion supporter to decide at what point in human development a human may be called human, and (b) you were asked what gave you the moral authority to remove "humanness" from one category of humans existing along the natural spectrum of human existence, your response: you never even acknowledged the question, not even in your list of offenses against you. This despite having made this issue plainly known as the fundamental, baseline issue underneath all of the excuses to support the elitism you display.
Your behavior is intellectually dishonest. At the end it became so desperately immature that it revealed the true nature of your position, either as a troll, or someone too dishonest to continue discussion with.
I stand by the comments to which you objected. I object to your intellectual intransigence, and your refusal to accept your logical fallacies, your refusal to answer the questions posed to you, and the childish mimicry in which you indulge. You want to be taken seriously? Then fully engage the issues which are being discussed and the challenges presented to you, instead of constantly producing mimicry as is found in adolescence, and blatant avoidance.
I strongly suspect that you are one of the previous trolls, who is sock puppeting in order to fill this blog with junk thinking.
Adios
Stan, I ran into people like you before. That's why I don't mention I am a Christian because I like to see how bias you are. You never inquired, you just assumed, and I let you run with it. So of course, I am not affected slightly by your charge of AtheoLeftist. It means nothing to me, or anyone actually.
I am bot surprised you thought, and still think, I am not a Christian. There are ~2Billion people who self identity as such, I am not surprised, unlike your ignorant self, to run into Christians I disagree with. You are the irrational and emotional one, the one who jumps to conclusions ans uses subjective logic as if it were absolutely true.
1. I responded to what was relevant, which was almost nothing...
2. I didn't see any intelligible responses, you assert life begin at conception, then complain that ANY argument violates that "truth". Same with Robert, from what I quickly looked at. I am unimpressed by long 2/3 part comments that stary with such assumption.
3. I never claimed to have a specific imperative as to when the "X' is, to use your own terms. What I argued against is your irrational imposition of 'X' being 0 and nothing else, which defies everything we know about biology, history and social study.
Some Christians live in reality, others don't. It's clear where you fall.
Choices:
@Robert
Sorry but I read only 1 of your comment on the previous thread where you asked Stan to pat you on the back, or correct you if you wer e wrong. I figured it was thus pointless to read what you write and focused on Stan only.
I came to this blog as a student of logic and logical fallacies associated with atheism. I explicitly acknowledge Stan's superior grasp of logic and the various fallacies, based on the fact that he has studied all aspects of this topic in considerably more depth and for a much longer time than I have. As a student, I requested correction (if needed) so that I can learn. I did NOT ask Stan for a "pat on the back" for anything, and have need for "kudos" based on whether I am being logic or illogical.
You, on the other hand, on you admitted basis of dismissing every argument without even reading it, have ignored every logical argument given to you. You have consistently failed to address the impetus for the original blog post, to wit, the "illogically contradictory" position stated by Mary Elizabeth Williams in her Salon article. You studiously avoid the moral dichotomy involved in acceptance of the position articulated by Mary Elizabeth Williams, to wit, that the life of a "fully human" being begins at conception, followed by the IMMORAL assertion of an "unrestricted right" to kill said "fully human " being at the sole discretion (whim) of the potential mother, for whatever reason (or no reason) at any time.
If you will bother to read what has been written, I think you will find more than adequate argumentation revealing the moral Void in the affirmation of an "unrestricted right" to kill a "fully human" being for any reason whatsoever.
I have to go to work, again, for the purposes of making my mandatory contribution to the Collective. I will explore a different argument when I get the chance.
Just out of curiosity: how many times are you going to dismiss any continuation of the discussion as pointless, stating your "Goodbyes" - and then returning for yet another chorus of the same old thing? Do you labor under the false impression that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will become the truth?
Correction: I have NO need for "kudos" for whatever I have written. Sorry for the inadvertent omission of the word "No."
Under the current AtheoLeftist Chinese government, it is LEGAL to FORCE an abortion on a woman simply because of the government mandated limit of 1 child per household. The whim of the potential mother is NOT a consideration at all. The government authorities control ALL decisions regarding who is human, and who lives (or dies) - and that is NOT limited to just questions concerning pregnancy and abortion.
Under this LEGAL system, let's consider the argument made that it is the WOMAN (and ONLY the woman) who decides the question of "meat" or "not meat" inside the uterus, without any other consideration at all and without any "right" of a third party to "interfere" in her decision.
The Chinese government LEGALLY establishes ITS "unrestricted right" to kill (or not) as it unilaterally decides - without consideration of the desires of the woman involved AT ALL.
We now contemplate the original argument that ONLY the WOMAN can decide the "meat" or "not meat" question. But if the woman CANNOT make that decision because her decision is subject to being overridden LEGALLY (and arbitrarily) by government fiat (another third party), does THAT make the case that the "thing" inside the uterus is actually an "entity" in a quasi "thing without a country" status, lost forever between "meat" and "no meat" status? Or, does the woman's whim still provide the defining status? If she doesn't want "it," it's "meat;" if she DOES want "it," it's NOT "meat." But then we still have the MORAL question to address, especially if the woman designates "it" as "not meat" and the government kills it as "meat" anyway.
Severe moral conundrums (and extremely hazardous living conditions) result from LEGALIZATION of the "unrestricted right" of third parties to kill "fully human" beings for any reason whatsoever (or no reason) at any time.
I'm sure this argument could be clarified and expanded, but I'm too tired right now to pursue it. (I'm exercising MY "choices" to go to bed. Good night!)
Choices:
This is a final response to your final comment at this blog.
You said,
”I am bot surprised you thought, and still think, I am not a Christian. There are ~2Billion people who self identity as such, I am not surprised, unlike your ignorant self, to run into Christians I disagree with. You are the irrational and emotional one, the one who jumps to conclusions ans uses subjective logic as if it were absolutely true.”
Christians do not claim personal rights to kill other innocent humans at will. You are claiming that right by asserting the further right to choose at what point a human may be designated killable. It is quite simply just that.
”1. I responded to what was relevant, which was almost nothing...”
You responded with excuse after excuse after excuse, but refused to answer the question of your personal moral authority to define which humans can be placed in a Kill Class and then designated Killable at will. That false moral authority is more closely associated with Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Che, etc. and is certainly not associated with Jesus.
”2. I didn't see any intelligible responses, you assert life begin at conception, then complain that ANY argument violates that "truth". Same with Robert, from what I quickly looked at. I am unimpressed by long 2/3 part comments that stary with such assumption.”
Tellingly you claimed that the one fixed point in human development, the point where it starts, was not valid, but that you have the capability to determine where that human becomes human, as if you are omniscient. Now you claim to be Christian, as if that makes your position holy, as well as omniscient. The fact that you claim Messianic and godlike capabilities, plus claim a religious belief counter to that renders you irrational to the point of insanity.
”3. I never claimed to have a specific imperative as to when the "X' is, to use your own terms. What I argued against is your irrational imposition of 'X' being 0 and nothing else, which defies everything we know about biology, history and social study. “
And you specifically refused to provide specifics about “everything we know about biology, history and social study”, which allows you the moral authority to create Kill Classes for humans who exist along the normal spectrum of human development, place those innocent beings into your Kill Classes, and designate them as killable. You made specious references to vague authority which you could not or would not produce. That is intellectually irresponsible. It is also false, because there is precisely nothing you could produce from any source whatsoever that backs up your claim. To now claim that your only argument is against X=conception and not for creating Kill Classes is maximally absurd. ANY claim which amounts to X>0 is precisely in support of redefinition and devaluation of the human into a Kill Class. This thread is about abortion, which FULLY REQUIRES human devaluation into a Kill Classification, and designating that human as KILLABLE, at will, and then KILLING her.
”Some Christians live in reality, others don't. It's clear where you fall.”
Get help.
Adios.
Robert,
One thing I have learned during the years of dealing with Atheists is that their irrationality is not accidental in the sense that they have made an inadvertent error in deduction.
Their irrationality is very purposeful, because it is emotionally based, usually having been acquired well before the completion of the development of the frontal cortex (up to the age of 28 for that to complete), and necessitated by rebellious factors in adolescence while struggling for their own agency. (This is commonly exacerbated by female dominance in their formative years, with denial of strong masculine input due to weak or absent fathering: Vitz:"Faith of the Fatherless").
Their emotional neediness attaches to rejection of all authority and they develop their own "truths" which become iconized. It becomes necessary to support those icons by rationalizing whatever premises they can find or create for support, and rationalization becomes the mental process which they come to think is normal. Of course, it is not normal, it is false but more importantly it is dangerous because their emotional needs become their moral principles which are applied to others. So irrationality reigns and is hotly defended.
Apply those observations to abortions, and you get just what we have seen here.
Here's an excellent book that addresses the same issues we have been exploring. (I started to use the word "debating" but a one-sided "debate" without arguments from the "con" side doesn't seem like much of a debate.)
Ten Universal Principles: A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues
Dr. Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D.
© 2011 Ignatius Press
ISBN 978-1-58617-475-0
Dr. Spitzer deconstructs the spurious and irrational "logic" used by the "Black Robed Oligarchs" to reach its fallacious conclusion in Roe v. Wade. He also provides EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the OBJECTIVE FACT that a "fully human" being begins its existence at conception.
Excerpt:
"As mentioned above, a DNA sequencer was constructed in the late 1980s, which enabled Dr. Jerome Lejeune and others to be certain of the presence of a unique full human genome in a single-celled human zygote. As also noted above, a full human genome in a zygote (the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by sexual reproduction) constitutes a distinct and unique human being whose identity and DNA is not reducible to the mother's. Dr. Lejeune later testified to this fact in 1991 in New Jersey v. Alexander Lace and in 1992 in Davis v. Davis (see note 10 on p. 19). This showed that the Supreme Court was unjustified in rushing toward its decision, which resulted in a violation of the principle of nonmaleficence, and that, if it were truly uncertain about whether a human being was present in the womb, it should have deferred any decision about abortion until new technologies could make a clear scientific determination about the presence of human life. The Court did not revisit the criteria used in the Roe v. Wade decision, which makes it at least as unjust as the Dred Scott decision. Recall that a majority's justification by uncertainty has a fundamental flaw, because uncertainty proves nothing objectively. It only manifests subjective ignorance. It is not the presence of evidence; it is the absence of the knowledge of the evidence.
"The majority enshrined this "irrational rationale" in a Supreme Court precedent."
Dr. Spitzer completely demolishes the oft-repeated "pro choice" shibboleths, to wit, that those who affirm the existence of a "fully human" being from the moment of conception are (1) being "arbitrary" and/or (2) "emotional" and/or (3) "unscientific."
(I suspect that a "seeker after Truth" who can't be bothered to read combox entries certainly won't be interested in purchasing and reading a book on the subject. "Don't try to confuse me with facts; my mind is already made up.")
Post a Comment