Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 35 of 35
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A fetus is human. A toddler is human. A geriatric is human. An egg is not a human. By itself will never be nothing more than an egg.
    You switched from "human" with fetus, toddler, and geriatric to "A human" when referring to an egg. In other words you used an adjective (human) for the first three and a noun (a human) for the egg. This really looks like equivocation as in using different definitions of "human" to describe different things. But I understand that that may have been unintentional.

    But either way I think you need to provide ONE definition for "human" and stick with it. Please use a dictionary definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Or why not say human. It is after all, a human life we are talking about. No one would say a fetus life it seems....it a human llife.
    That's imprecise. If you say "human", it could be referring to a born person. So unless you plan to NEVER talk about the unborn exclusively, you need to use a term that applies to the unborn exclusively.

    Do you have a problem with using specific terminology?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You have already agreed that "some states" will charge the murderer of a pregnant woman with double homicide.
    But I didn't agree that these laws establish a legal precedent that gives the unborn the right to life. If you are going to argue that that's what these laws did, then you need to support that.

    And quite simply, if there was indeed a legal right for the unborn, then these states could outlaw abortion and they cannot.

    Besides that, even if you were right, that does not mean that the fetus should have the legal right to life. Obviously, I'm not using the current state of the law allowing abortoin to justify legalized abortion. To do so would be to engage in the is/ought fallacy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Please support that ANY human has ever come from an unfertilized egg.
    Can I just appeal to basic biology? Without unfertilized human eggs, there would never be fertilized eggs and therefore no human beings.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Conception is at the time of sperm/egg fertilization. Two cells, to four, to eight, etc. ALL humans started this way.
    And before that, the eggs were fertilized eggs, they were unfertilized eggs. And I understand conception. But you have not supported that upon conception, a being that deserves legal rights exists. I mean so far all I seem to have your opinion that this is the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Please tell me, how many cell, in your opiniom, does it take to be a human being?
    I could tell you my opinion but then it would just be my opinion. And my position is that all we have are opinions. I hold that there is no way to raise this above an agree to disagree because all we have are conflicting opinions on the matter. So giving you my opinion won't really solve anything. And neither will you just telling me your opinion which seems to be all you've done. Yes, you've provided some facts but none of those are facts that require one to change one's opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Not surprising, so?
    Well, I find it odd that you rail against semantics since they seem to be primary part of your debate.

    And it seems that semantics and equivocation is a pretty standard tactic when pro-lifers argue that the fetus should have the legal right to life. It seems to go that since I'm against born people being killed, I'm against humans being killed And then the word "human" is applied to fetuses and therefore that supposedly gets me to agree that since I think that "humans" should not be killed, I have to agree that fetuses should not be killed. But that is nothing more than playing around with words and definitions as opposed to providing a solid argument for why fetuses should be granted the legal right to life. If there is a good argument for the fetal right to life, it has to be based on something other than word-play and semantics.
    Last edited by mican333; October 3rd, 2017 at 09:45 AM.

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You switched from "human" with fetus, toddler, and geriatric to "A human" when referring to an egg. In other words you used an adjective (human) for the first three and a noun (a human) for the egg. This really looks like equivocation as in using different definitions of "human" to describe different things. But I understand that that may have been unintentional.
    Sorry for the confusion.

    a fertilized egg is the first stage of a human life
    a fetus is another stage of a human life
    a toddler is another stage of a human life
    adulthood is another stage of a human life

    ---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You switched from "human" with fetus, toddler, and geriatric to "A human" when referring to an egg. In other words you used an adjective (human) for the first three and a noun (a human) for the egg. This really looks like equivocation as in using different definitions of "human" to describe different things. But I understand that that may have been unintentional.

    But either way I think you need to provide ONE definition for "human" and stick with it. Please use a dictionary definition.
    And I think when people hear "fetus" (in the context of abortion) it sounds like more of an ideal than a life that is being discussed. When I say "fetus/human life/unborn human" I don't think anyone is confused by "who/what" I am referring to.

    ---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And it seems that semantics and equivocation is a pretty standard tactic when pro-lifers argue that the fetus should have the legal right to life. It seems to go that since I'm against born people being killed, I'm against humans being killed And then the word "human" is applied to fetuses and therefore that supposedly gets me to agree that since I think that "humans" should not be killed, I have to agree that fetuses should not be killed. But that is nothing more than playing around with words and definitions as opposed to providing a solid argument for why fetuses should be granted the legal right to life. If there is a good argument for the fetal right to life, it has to be based on something other than word-play and semantics.

    And I think you need to explain why a "fetus" soooooooo different, since that is just stage life all human's go thru (if they are to become adults or any other later stage of life).

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Sorry for the confusion.

    a fertilized egg is the first stage of a human life
    a fetus is another stage of a human life
    a toddler is another stage of a human life
    adulthood is another stage of a human life
    What about an unfertilized eggs?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And I think when people hear "fetus" (in the context of abortion) it sounds like more of an ideal than a life that is being discussed.
    When I hear a world that applies exclusively to the unborn, I think of an unborn.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    When I say "fetus/human life/unborn human" I don't think anyone is confused by "who/what" I am referring to.
    But to use terms that can apply to humans that are not unborn looks like, and probably is, equivocation.

    In other words, instead of logically making the case that the born and unborn are the same in a relevant fashion, which is an argument that would require support, you are just using a word that can apply to both which is just equivocation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And I think you need to explain why a "fetus" soooooooo different, since that is just stage life all human's go thru (if they are to become adults or any other later stage of life).
    Because the primary issue in the abortion debate is whether one should be allowed to abortion a fetus. The other stages of life are not really a factor when it comes to the controversy. Before conception, there's no issue with the unfertilized egg dying. After birth, there is no controversy over whether the life can be terminated because the law is clear and no one really disagrees with it.

    So in the abortion debate, the fetus is obviously the issue. There is absolutely no discussion in ending the life at any other stages of development.

  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    What about an unfertilized eggs?
    They stay an unfertilized egg until they die.

    ---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When I hear a world that applies exclusively to the unborn, I think of an unborn.
    Ok...

    What is an "unborn"?

    ---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But to use terms that can apply to humans that are not unborn looks like, and probably is, equivocation.

    In other words, instead of logically making the case that the born and unborn are the same in a relevant fashion, which is an argument that would require support, you are just using a word that can apply to both which is just equivocation.


    Hmmm.
    Why do you believe they are soo different? It's the same human, born or unborn????.

    What "changes" when a human is born that makes this such a major distinction from other stages of life?

  5. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    They stay an unfertilized egg until they die.
    No. They stay an unfertilized egg until they die or until they become fertilized. Then they become a fetus. And the fetus stays a fetus until it dies or is born.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok...

    What is an "unborn"?
    A fetus.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Hmmm.
    Why do you believe they are soo different? It's the same human, born or unborn????
    In terns of the abortion debate, the focus is on the unborn and not the born. THAT is a huge difference when it comes to discussing abortion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    What "changes" when a human is born that makes this such a major distinction from other stages of life?
    That is a question, not an argument. If you want to make an argument regarding this, then make your argument.

    But I don't see what this has to do with the term. When the discussion centers around a particular thing then you need to use terms that apply to that particular thing exclusively.

    When it comes to abortion, is the issue the death of BOTH the born and the unborn? Of course not. It's only about the unborn and therefore when referring to the unborn, one should use terms that apply exclusively to the unborn. If you disagree with this, then please make an argument countering this. Otherwise this particular argument stands unchallenged.

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. They stay an unfertilized egg until they die or until they become fertilized.
    Agreed

    And when fertilized EVERYTHING changes!

    ---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    A fetus.
    Funny

    Actually, not really.....
    :(

  7. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And when fertilized EVERYTHING changes!
    That's pretty vague. I don't see an actual argument there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Funny

    Actually, not really.....
    :(
    So a fetus is not an unborn?

  8. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    64
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you are going to have a debate around these questions, then it's appropriate for you to make the initial statement. So I will debate the issue, but you have to start the debate with affirmative statements and not questions. I have to assume that you yourself have definite positions regarding the questions you have asked. So let's hear them.
    Okay:
    1) The unborn is a human being.
    2) Human life is intrinsically valuable.
    3) It is reasonable to believe the unborn is a person.
    4) Taking the life of an innocent human being is murder, not a right.

    Peter

  9. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    1) The unborn is a human being.
    This appears to be nothing but semantics. If you want to apply the term "human being" to the unborn, that's fine. But that in and of itself does not mean that the unborn should have the legal right to life (as in we should grant the unborn the same legal right to life that the born have).


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    2) Human life is intrinsically valuable.
    I agree. But that doesn't mean that the unborn should have the legal right to life. I think an unfertilized human egg has intrinsic value for is they did not exist, neither would born humans. But obviously there is no real problem with most human eggs dying before they become born humans.

    So intrinsic value does not equate a right to life.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    3) It is reasonable to believe the unborn is a person.
    But "person" is likewise a semantic argument so my response to #1 applies to this as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    4) Taking the life of an innocent human being is murder, not a right.
    This is not true. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Assuming, per #1, you are grouping the unborn under the term "human being", then it is not unlawful to kill them and therefore it is not technically murder.

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's pretty vague. I don't see an actual argument there.




    So a fetus is not an unborn?
    This little quote is no different than when I asked you to provide "a legal precedent for the taking of a human life based on another human's right to privacy" to support your claims.
    You said "abortion, of course".

    Saying "fetus" is an "unborn", and then when asked to define "unborn", you say "a fetus", is bad form IMHO.

    From now on, I will just consider these types of comments as a concession to the current point of contention, as nothing else is being offered.

  11. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This little quote is no different than when I asked you to provide "a legal precedent for the taking of a human life based on another human's right to privacy" to support your claims.
    You said "abortion, of course".

    Saying "fetus" is an "unborn", and then when asked to define "unborn", you say "a fetus", is bad form IMHO.
    And IMHO asking that question is bad form. As I've said before, questions are not arguments. I don't even have any obligation to answer such questions and I certainly have no obligation to give you answer that you actually like.

    If you don't like the answers I give to your question, then don't ask question. Instead, make arguments. Ask your question to yourself, generate the answer you like and then present that as an affirmative statement and see if I rebut it or not. How do YOU define "unborn"?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    From now on, I will just consider these types of comments as a concession to the current point of contention, as nothing else is being offered.
    I wasn't responding to your points. I was responding to your questions. So no, you can't consider any points to be conceded just because you don't like the answer to the questions you ask.

    In fact, since me answering your questions seems to cause problems, I should probably just not respond to them. So let's just stick to making arguments, alright?

  12. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And IMHO asking that question is bad form. As I've said before, questions are not arguments. I don't even have any obligation to answer such questions and I certainly have no obligation to give you answer that you actually like.

    If you don't like the answers I give to your question, then don't ask question. Instead, make arguments. Ask your question to yourself, generate the answer you like and then present that as an affirmative statement and see if I rebut it or not. How do YOU define "unborn"?




    I wasn't responding to your points. I was responding to your questions. So no, you can't consider any points to be conceded just because you don't like the answer to the questions you ask.

    In fact, since me answering your questions seems to cause problems, I should probably just not respond to them. So let's just stick to making arguments, alright?
    Mican, I think it would be better if we didn't converse anymore.
    I find you intellectually dishonest in your arguments. No doubt you disagree, and perhaps that is correct (as I never claimed to be right all the time, I could be wrong with you).

    The truth of the matter is, I am not enjoying, nor learning anything talking with you based on your arguments. I don't mean this as an attack or anything of the sort, I just don't see a reason to interact with you anymore because I am not learning from it.

    So, good day sir. I hope you have a great night, and I do mean that sincerely,
    Belthazor

  13. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Mican, I think it would be better if we didn't converse anymore.
    I find you intellectually dishonest in your arguments.
    I promise you that I am not being intellectually dishonest and I'd appreciate if you refrain from making person comments about me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    The truth of the matter is, I am not enjoying, nor learning anything talking with you based on your arguments. I don't mean this as an attack or anything of the sort, I just don't see a reason to interact with you anymore because I am not learning from it.
    But then I'm not here to teach your but to debate you which means that I must assume an adversarial position. And I'm not just contradicting you but stating my honest viewpoint and where we debate is where we disagree. But to make it clear, I am forwarding two positions here so if you are going to learn from me, this is what I would "teach" you (although I'm not going to say anything that you haven't heard before from me).

    1. In the abortion debate, both sides are ultimately based on opinion. One side holds the opinion that the unborn have a right to life and the other side holds a different opinion. Generally speaking, there is no way for one side to convince the other and therefore ultimately they must agree to disagree.

    2. In the abortion debate, we should use terms that refer exclusively to the unborn when referring to them. So "fetus", "unborn", and "embryo" are fine but "human being", "baby", and "child" are not (although saying "unborn baby" is fine as that refers exclusively to the unborn) as it is basically engaging in equivocation - using vague terminology to tie the born and unborn together when one is really just referring to the unborn.

    So those are my two arguments regarding abortion on the threads here. If you do want to continue debating, those would be the positions to challenge. I don't expect that you will and that's fine but I just want to make it clear what I'm forwarding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So, good day sir. I hope you have a great night, and I do mean that sincerely,
    Belthazor
    You too. Have a good night.

  14. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    64
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    1) The unborn is a human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This appears to be nothing but semantics. If you want to apply the term "human being" to the unborn, that's fine. But that in and of itself does not mean that the unborn should have the legal right to life (as in we should grant the unborn the same legal right to life that the born have).
    You are joking, right???

    "If [I] want to apply the term 'Human being?'" Is it human or is it something else? Is it living?

    Let's see what embryology texts say about when a human life starts (I have included many quotes to show your bias) These quotes are from the following website:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/4...at-conception/

    ***

    Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
    Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

    https://www.vitalsource.com/products...aign=shopping1

    ***

    “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
    Clark Edward and *Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

    ***

    Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:
    “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

    From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

    ***

    Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
    “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

    ***

    “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”
    Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

    ***

    “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
    James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

    ***

    “….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”
    Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

    ***

    From Newsweek November 12, 1973:
    Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide.”
    Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

    ***

    In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005 (Prenatal Development Video)
    “The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”

    ***

    Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86
    “The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”

    ***

    Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99
    “Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum and a much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex …structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection.”

    ***

    Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
    “In that fraction of a second *when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception]*the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

    ***

    Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
    “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

    ***

    I believe Atheists do what many totalitarian or elitist societies do. They redefine the living human being out of existence or make it of secondary importance by using elitist language to downgrade the value of such a being. Well documented examples are societies like Nazi Germany, Communist China, the USSR, South Africa, India, to name a few of the many. What was done in Nazi Germany is the same thing being done to over a billion human beings.

    I'll leave that discussion for another time.

    http://www.numberofabortions.com/

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 01:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    2) Human life is intrinsically valuable.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I agree. But that doesn't mean that the unborn should have the legal right to life. I think an unfertilized human egg has intrinsic value for is they did not exist, neither would born humans. But obviously there is no real problem with most human eggs dying before they become born humans.
    Legal right???

    So intrinsic value, for you, does not equate a legal right to life.
    Just because someone can legislate a person's existence out of existence or exploit them to the fullest does not make that 'right' IF human beings have intrinsic value and the unborn is a human being. The consensus on whether it is human does not favor your position. If an intrinsic human value is going to be legislated, then you can only hope they don't start with you as missing the standard. Jews were legislated out of existence in Nazi Germany. The same philosophy is used by Planned Parenthood.

    https://healthimpactnews.com/2015/pl...ercover-video/

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/eug...many-followed/

    Africans were legislated as second class beings in South Africa (I lived there and had witnessed Apathied).

    The Caste System in India looks down on the lower classes:

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Uihw0hFUXho/maxresdefault.jpg

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 02:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But "person" is likewise a semantic argument so my response to #1 applies to this as well.
    I, as well as a significant number of scientific texts (possibly most), group the unborn as a human being. You seem to be out in left field, once again. Now you are doing the same with personhood.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    4) Taking the life of an innocent human being is murder, not a right.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This is not true. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Assuming, per #1, you are grouping the unborn under the term "human being", then it is not unlawful to kill them and therefore it is not technically murder.
    Since you disagree with my definition (not true), then you must believe that killing an innocent human being is alright/legal and you are free to do so because it is not murder.

    Peter

  15. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You are joking, right???

    "If [I] want to apply the term 'Human being?'" Is it human or is it something else? Is it living?
    I see you are missing my point entirely. I'm not saying you can't apply the term nor am I saying that the term is inaccurate. I'm saying that just because you can accurately apply a word to something doesn't mean anything other than the word applies. So a strictly semantic argument doesn't mean anything.

    Let me demonstrate this with an example. I'm going to introduce a made-up word - Harkus. We can debate whether "Harkus" applies to the unborn and if the person who argues that it does apply wins the argument, then it does apply. But that in and of itself doesn't mean that the unborn deserve the legal right to life.

    So again, I'm not saying the term "human being" does not apply but just saying that it does, even if one is correct, doesn't mean that the fetus deserves the legal right to life. So semantic arguments, in and of themselves, don't support either side of the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Let's see what embryology texts say about when a human life starts (I have included many quotes to show your bias)
    But none of this proves that a human fetus should have the legal right to life.

    And btw, you may not have noticed this, but in either abortion thread I have NEVER argued that the fetus does not deserve the right to life or that abortion should not be outlawed.

    As I've said, BOTH sides of the debate cannot support their positions as they are ultimately based on subjective criteria. So I don't argue that abortion should be legal as I have no way of supporting that position.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Legal right???

    So intrinsic value, for you, does not equate a legal right to life.
    Correct. I think a fertilized egg has intrinsic value for if they did not exist, then humans would not exist. But then I also think that unfertilized eggs have intrinsic value for the same reason. If a woman never produced any eggs, mankind would not exist. But I don't think that unfertilized eggs deserve legal protection and pretty much everyone agrees with me about that. So no, I don't think that everything that has intrinsic value has a legal right to life.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Just because someone can legislate a person's existence out of existence or exploit them to the fullest does not make that 'right' IF human beings have intrinsic value and the unborn is a human being. The consensus on whether it is human does not favor your position. If an intrinsic human value is going to be legislated, then you can only hope they don't start with you as missing the standard.
    If you are going to engage in slippery slope arguments, then what about the intrinsic value of unfertilized eggs? If we did outlaw abortion, wouldn't you be concerned about the fact that we allow unfertilized eggs to die during a woman's monthly cycle? If we don't value unfertilized eggs, then what's next?


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I, as well as a significant number of scientific texts (possibly most), group the unborn as a human being. You seem to be out in left field, once again. Now you are doing the same with personhood.
    I don't disagree with the text. But the texts did not say that abortion should be illegal.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Since you disagree with my definition (not true), then you must believe that killing an innocent human being is alright/legal and you are free to do so because it is not murder.
    I didn't disagree with the definition. My point is that applying a certain word to something, even if applied correctly, does not mean that it should have the legal right to life.

    And speaking of definition, abortion is not, by definition, murder. Murder is defined as an unlawful killing and abortion is not unlawful. And of course that does not mean that abortion should not be outlawed because, as I said, applying a term does not automatically mean that abortion should or should not be legal.

    So I'm not disagreeing with the terms. I'm saying that the terms, in and of themselves, do not equate an argument for or against abortion. So you need to do more than just say "human being" to make a supported argument that abortion should be illegal.
    Last edited by mican333; October 13th, 2017 at 08:55 AM.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. List of Suggested Key Terms on the Great Debate
    By Scotsmanmatt in forum Religion
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: June 12th, 2015, 03:45 PM
  2. Abortion: split from a 1 vs 1 debate
    By CC in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 04:37 PM
  3. Debate Mastery: Abortion
    By TheOriginal in forum General Debate
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 20th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •