Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?
POSTED BY: FLF
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 13:13
VIEWED: 24147
PAGE 10 of 26
What are you babbling about? When you say 'fully developed fetus' you are still talking about a fetus. You say a fully developed human fetus is human. What shall I conclude about a fetus that is not fully developed?
As I said, I understand the point you're TRYING to make. But your argument is circular, and logically incomplete. I'm asking you to address your faulty logic.
(The circular argument - the fetus is human b/c it results in a human adult; which is human b/c it comes from a human fetus.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You don’t seem to have anything to say about what I’m “TRYING” to say, and what you’re asking is sophistic. You’re just nitpicking the way I’m saying it. I don’t really see where this going. But if you can see what I'm trying to say then that is at least something.
Originally posted by rue:
As I said, I understand the point you're TRYING to make. But your argument is circular, and logically incomplete. I'm asking you to address your faulty logic.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I addressed what you're TRYING to say - and I said it was circular. (supra)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I dont' see any resolution on the end-of-human-life thing. Just because a court has reached a decision on it doesn't mean it's resolved.
Although, if that's your deffinition, then abortion's already been resolved as well. I don't neccisarily think that this is a bad thing: Just not an actual "resolution". If people could be pacified by government decision, it'd be a great place to end.
The pro-life (or anti-choice as you called them) may seem hypocritical to you, but to them it makes perfect sense. By the examples you gave, they could say that a life, once it's conceived, should be given the oppertunity to survive, and that if it is extinguished by war, death penalty, or economics, it was at least granted the oppertunity. I'm sure that you'd agree that a child deserve the oppertunities to survive, so the debate, again, resorts to where the life begins, not if/when it is extinguished.
[IMG]
Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkiries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Even most anti-choice people agree on the 'end-of-life' definition as brain death. The Schiavo argument centered around how much brain activity and function remained. Her parents said - look, she tracked a balloon once, and she seems to look at us at times, and a few times she might have smiled. They weren't arguing whether end of life happens at end of brain function. They were arguing (incorrectly) that she had enough brain function left to be considered alive. But they made the same equation: brain activity = life.
(A few people do argue that even though a person has lost all brain function they deserve to be treated AS IF they could recover. That it is a duty of human charity to do that.)
"they could say that a life, once it's conceived, should be given the oppertunity to survive, and that if it is extinguished by war, death penalty, or economics, it was at least granted the oppertunity."
I hope you realize this makes no sense. It is completely captured by this remark: LIFE IS SACRED -- UNTIL IT'S BORN. In other words, your comment is that war, economics and the death penalty are allowed to kill humans AFTER birth, but those same factors are not allowed to kill humans BEFORE birth. Doesn't that seem rather arbitrary and self-deluding to you? It does to me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just an FYI in the birth-control debate.
The problem with making sex a MORAL issue is that it leads kids to have sex while being in denial about what they're doing. In other words, since having sex is "bad" it then becomes UNPLANNED, because nobody is going to PLAN on doing something "bad". Right?
The other thing is, you have to look at the reasons why girls and women become pregnant (aside from being in denial about having sex) and it does vary with different ages. Most younger girls (less than 15 y/o) become pregnant because they're involved with a MUCH older man... 25 y/o, or older. Most older men have sex with very young girls because their egos are too weak for anything else. The relationship is exploitative.(This goes back to the Foley issue and makes me wonder why he would have sex with a sub-adult.)
While "education about" and "accessibility of" birth control are necessary to reduce the number of abortions, it may not be sufficient.
Also, ANY birth control method, even if practiced unfailingly, has a failure rate.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
dbl, somehow
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My point is not that it makes any sense in general, just that there are people who beleive it. Saying "This one philosophy of yours contridicts another" isn't going to get the other guy to change his mind, especially if he's ideologically driven. More than likely it's just going to piss him off.
I'm not supporting either side here. Like I said before, this issue comes down to how far either side is willing to take their beleifs about it. Personally, I don't see the reason to take my beleifs on it outside my own, dented little head. The only opinion I have is that you are never going to convince the other side that they're wrong, just as they're not going to convince you that you're wrong.
[IMG]
Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkiries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FINN
Quote:Yes, I can show you fetuses that become somethng other than human when fully developed. The fetuses that become fully developed placentas, for example. They ARE "fully developed". They're not about to go any farther. They just didn't develop into a human. So, I win!
If you can show me an example of a human fetus becoming something other then human when it is fully developed and complete, then you’ve won.
Quote:Circular logic, which begs the question: What is human? You reduce it to: A human is human. My head hurts from that one! Doesn't yours?
All human fetuses are human
Also, to extend your example of medically necessary abortions being acceptable... does this mean that war are acceptable only if they save more lives than they kill?
BTW- How do you feel about the death penalty?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And my point was that the human/life death debate DID get resolved for the end of human life. Medical intervention forever altered the hallmarks of death. People were forced to take note. They had to examine their assumptions about what it means to be alive or dead. Because those assumptions were examined, tested, and debated over time - decades - the basic issues became embedded in the collective concept. That is why a consensus was reached. Nearly everyone was starting from the same understanding.
That is why I have hope for the issue of the beginning of human life as well. The more it's debated, the more the usual assumptions get tested. It's the debate itself which will generate progress.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME