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 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 56 of 56
  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Fetus: A medical term referring to an unborn individual of a given species.

    Child: A social term indicating that one individual is the ward or offspring of another.

    Baby: A common term for an individual of a pre-adolescent or younger age. Typically largely helpless without its parents.

    Baby is arguably the most humanizing and endearing term. We use it with a lot of emotional impact. Child is a social definition, it has meaning and significance but less specific endearment. Fetus is clinical and de-humanizing to some degree.

    If you are trying to make an argument with a strong emotional impact against abortion, use the world Baby. If you are trying to minimize emotional impact as a pro-choice advocate, use Fetus. If you want some middle ground "unborn child" is probably the best middle ground.

    For me, personhood is a pretty squishy concept but a real one. I can't look at a very early fetus and say, "that's a person." I don't identify people in my society by their DNA. I do so far more by my senses and by their social impact. But as a fetus develops, I definatley begin to think of it as a person, specifically a child. The further it gets along, the stronger that association. The earlier an abortion is performed, the less qualms I have about it. I have none for mechanisms like the morning after pill. The later an abortion is performed, the more revolted and morally outraged I am by it.

    I don't find arguments based on (Human + Unique + Alive = person as persuasive) on this matter. Nor do I find those that say that until it is born, it is not a person. My heart, my head, and my common sense rejects both of these extremes.
    Here, I think, you and I are the moderates in this debate and probably the most reasonable. It is not black and white as pro-life and pro-choice folks will protest. It is simply not simple. At some point, as a society, we simply need to draw an arbitrary line and proclaim this is where life begins. This is where it is no longer ok to have an abortion. I think it is somewhere between conception and birth. The problem is that short of absolute victory neither of the extremists will settle. For pro-life people it is an issue of moral faith and murder. For people on the pro-choice side it is basically a religious belief and person identity. So, at some point, us reasonable folks need to ignore the squeaky wheels and just make a decision. There are a host of political reasons why this won't happen in my lifetime, but dare to dream. And I do dream, as the abortion debate has been one of the most draining and insufferable public discourses held during my lifetime. Basically, two sets of people whom I can rarely tolerate yelling at each other about how evil the other one is. Feminazis and Evangelicals.... Oye vay!
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    At some point, as a society, we simply need to draw an arbitrary line and proclaim this is where life begins. This is where it is no longer ok to have an abortion. I think it is somewhere between conception and birth.
    An "arbitrary line" is the "best" choice?
    Could you expand on that point please?

    and

    What is the reason late term abortions should be regulated more than earlier term abortions, or should they be?
    I have never heard anything other than emotional appeals or aesthetics to answer this question?

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    An "arbitrary line" is the "best" choice?
    Could you expand on that point please?

    and

    What is the reason late term abortions should be regulated more than earlier term abortions, or should they be?
    I have never heard anything other than emotional appeals or aesthetics to answer this question?
    But then it's the same issue (emotional appeal or aesthetics) no matter where we draw the line. No one has ever both drawn a line (any iine) and then defended it without resorting to emotional appeal or some form of subjective reasoning. So quite simply, the criticism that you are offering for those who think there should be limits at third trimester but not first trimester applies just as well to where you want to set limits. You might have a different line where you think the law should offer restrictions but you can't really justify it any better than those who think the restrictions should apply at third trimester. You can use a different argument but ultimately the argument will be rooted in subjectivity.

    So subjectively setting restrictions at third trimester is not really different than setting it at conception.

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then it's the same issue (emotional appeal or aesthetics)
    Exactly

    ---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No one has ever both drawn a line (any iine) and then defended it without resorting to emotional appeal or some form of subjective reasoning.
    And you are forwarding an objective source exists to appeal to?

    ---------- Post added at 07:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You might have a different line where you think the law should offer restrictions but you can't really justify it any better than those who think the restrictions should apply at third trimester.
    I didn't say what my thoughts were on this. I was asking for some one to defend that late term abortions might need restriction but earlier term would not. Or conversely, why that should not be the case.

    ---------- Post added at 08:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So subjectively setting restrictions at third trimester is not really different than setting it at conception.
    Please define conception.

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I didn't say what my thoughts were on this. I was asking for some one to defend that late term abortions might need restriction but earlier term would not. Or conversely, why that should not be the case.
    As I've said in the past, questions are not argument. But don't worry, I'm not going to stone-wall you with that. I will provide an answer but only on the condition that you don't ask me more questions about my answer. In other words, you can use the answer for the basis of an argument but if you are just going to ask more and more questions about my answer instead of forwarding a debate position based on it, then my answer doesn't really lead to a debate-worthy exchange and therefore I don't see much reason to give it.

    So do we have a deal?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Please define conception.
    Why? Considering you've been arguing that conception is where the "human" attains the right to life, I have to assume you know what conception means. So whatever you think it means is what I was referring to (since I was referring to your argument when I said "conception").
    Last edited by mican333; November 18th, 2017 at 12:20 PM.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As I've said in the past, questions are not argument. But don't worry, I'm not going to stone-wall you with that. I will provide an answer but only on the condition that you don't ask me more questions about my answer. In other words, you can use the answer for the basis of an argument but if you are just going to ask more and more questions about my answer instead of forwarding a debate position based on it, then my answer doesn't really lead to a debate-worthy exchange and therefore I don't see much reason to give it.

    So do we have a deal?
    Umm....., huh?

    I don't ask questions just to confuse the issue. Generally, it's to clarify my opponents position You are of course , free to choose what you answer or not.
    So, answer if you want to continue I guess???
    I'm just trying to move forward in the debate.

    ---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Why? Considering you've been arguing that conception is where the "human" attains the right to life, I have to assume you know what conception means. So whatever you think it means is what I was referring to (since I was referring to your argument when I said "conception").
    No wonder we are having issues.
    My position is closer to "conception is the beginning of a new life". In this case, a new human life....
    Do you agree????

  7. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I don't ask questions just to confuse the issue. Generally, it's to clarify my opponents position You are of course , free to choose what you answer or not.
    So, answer if you want to continue I guess???
    I'm just trying to move forward in the debate.
    Ok. Here’s my answer.

    Generally speaking, from the pro-choice perspective, the closer a fetus comes to term, the more legal protections it should have. So while a late-term fetus does not have the full legal rights of the born (otherwise if there was a decision between saving the fetus or saving the mother, it wouldn't be uniformly decided that the mother is the one who needs to be saved but instead would be a significant ethical dilemma), it's justifiable to have significant restrictions on whether the fetus can be aborted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    My position is closer to "conception is the beginning of a new life". In this case, a new human life....
    Do you agree????
    That my be your position but it's not a good definition. Here's the dictionary definition and likewise is the one I was using when I said "conception".

    "the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both"

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception

    Do you agree with that as a valid definition?


    And here's something I learned recently. About 50% of fertilized human eggs don't implant and therefore die. So I guess they are killed by nature or arguably the mother (although it would be hard to hold her morally responsible for what her body does without her personal agreement). So if one is to hold that it's murder for a fertilized egg to be killed, it appears nature is a huge mass-murder for killing roughly half of the human race (if we count all fertilized eggs as part of the human race).
    Last edited by mican333; November 19th, 2017 at 03:49 PM.

  8. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Generally speaking, from the pro-choice perspective, the closer a fetus comes to term, the more legal protections it should have. So while a late-term fetus does not have the full legal rights of the born (otherwise if there was a decision between saving the fetus or saving the mother, it wouldn't be uniformly decided that the mother is the one who needs to be saved but instead would be a significant ethical dilemma), it's justifiable to have significant restrictions on whether the fetus can be aborted.
    So carefully guarded that your answer is, since you have no reason whatsoever given as to why it should be this way, it is a purely arbitrary choice.
    I would speculate (as did Sig.) most people find abortion less appealing the more the fetus "looks" like a human, IOW: "that life only matters when it looks human enough."
    Or, later term the fetus "looks " like a "baby"/"human".

    ---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    "the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both"
    Pregnant in this case is "with a human child".

    However, to your "semantic argument". I am fairly sure that this doctor thought he was helping to bring a new human life.!!


    "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.”

    ---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And here's something I learned recently. About 50% of fertilized human eggs don't implant and therefore die. So I guess they are killed by nature or arguably the mother (although it would be hard to hold her morally responsible for what her body does without her personal agreement). So if one is to hold that it's murder for a fertilized egg to be killed, it appears nature is a huge mass-murder for killing roughly half of the human race (if we count all fertilized eggs as part of the human race)
    So you are forwarding "nature" made a conscious choice to abort those 50%. Please support this.
    And, if you could, this equates to a mother KILLING HER OWN CHILD ON PURPOSE!
    (AFTER CAUSING IT TO "BE" IN THI FIRST PLACE!!)

  9. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    An "arbitrary line" is the "best" choice?
    Could you expand on that point please?

    and

    What is the reason late term abortions should be regulated more than earlier term abortions, or should they be?
    I have never heard anything other than emotional appeals or aesthetics to answer this question?
    As Mican already explained, and I agree, any line we set is arbitrary. Whether that line is set at conception or seconds prior to birth, it will be considered subjective. As a society, we draw arbitrary lines all the time (i.e. age of consent). Laws are simply agreements the people in a society make to keep peace and, hopefully, expand prosperity. So, as a society, we'd have more peace if we could all agree on some arbitrary line where we say abortion is ok/not ok.

    Why should later term abortions be regulated more than earlier term abortions? Look, maybe, they shouldn't. However, about 50% of society believes all abortion is wrong. Significantly more people believe that late term abortions are wrong. So, as a society, we tend to value the unborn the closer they get to being conceived.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So carefully guarded that your answer is, since you have no reason whatsoever given as to why it should be this way, it is a purely arbitrary choice.
    You didn't ask me why it should be this way. You asked me why pro-choices have different standards for early-term and late-term pregnancies and I gave you a very accurate answer. You have in no way shown that it's inaccurate.

    I do admit that my answer is very general. But then when the answer involves the views of millions of people who are likely factoring a wide variety of different factors, a very general answer is the only option if one wants to give an accurate response


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I would speculate (as did Sig.) most people find abortion less appealing the more the fetus "looks" like a human, IOW: "that life only matters when it looks human enough."
    But then that is speculation. I didn't speculate but instead gave an accurate answer. And I don't agree that that is how pro-choice thinking works so you will have to support it before it is accepted


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Pregnant in this case is "with a human child".

    However, to your "semantic argument". I am fairly sure that this doctor thought he was helping to bring a new human life.!!
    What doctor? And besides that, you did not rebut my question when you asked what conception means. So I will repeat it:

    You might have a different line where you think the law should offer restrictions but you can't really justify it any better than those who think the restrictions should apply at third trimester. You can use a different argument but ultimately the argument will be rooted in subjectivity.

    So subjectively setting restrictions at third trimester is not really different than setting it at conception.




    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So you are forwarding "nature" made a conscious choice to abort those 50%. Please support this.
    I did not say that nature made a conscious choice. But I am saying that if one holds that it's a human being at the moment that sperm meets egg, they should be very upset that half of all embryos are killed by this natural process. And yet, I've never heard anyone ever express remorse over this. So I conclude that no one is too concerned about this which shows that people are not that invested in the life of the fetus at the moment that egg meets sperm. I mean are you particularly bothered that half of all human embryos die before birth?

    I can believe that you weren't bothered by this before because you were unaware of this fact (I just learned it recently myself). But now that you do know, do you have a problem with this?
    Last edited by mican333; November 20th, 2017 at 11:27 AM.

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

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

    "If [I] want to apply the term 'Human being?'" Is it human or is it something else? Is it living?
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    So, you are doing the very thing the Nazis did with the Jews; you are using words to define particular persons out of existence or downgrade their human worth.

    The unborn is either human or it is not human. You say it is human, do you not?

    I'll ask again. Is it human? This is the issue.

    When you (or another person/persons) place no or little value on one undeveloped human being, then you (or another person/persons) open the door to put no or low worth on other human beings. The undervaluing of human beings is EXACTLY what happened in these societies and cultures I pointed out. They stamp[ed] out the rights of human beings (whether that be a Jew, an African, a Hindu, or an undeveloped human) and give/gave those particular beings a lesser status to abuse and, in some cases, even terminate their life.

    When you support the abortion argument, this is the thinking you are adopting, IMO.

    If you admit (like so much scientific opinion does) that human life starts at conception, and then discriminate against the right of that being to live, what makes it 'wrong' to do so with other human beings? You are basing the right to life on the development of the human being (if you regard the nature of the being as a human at conception). If you are going to base the right to life on development (or under development), then surely you could justify that a young girl (who does not have reproductory organs as developed as a teenager or woman) should not have the same rights to life that these other two have. This is what you are doing in the case of the unborn. (My argument is based on the SLED argument)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-iJQ92BwTU

    Size - does being larger than another person/human give you more rights than another person/human? Should it?
    Level of Development - is a 6-year-old girl less human than a 13-year-old or a 20-year-old woman because her reproductory tract is less developed.
    Do more intelligent people - more developed brains - have the right to eliminate the lesser intelligent (where does it end)? You (when you support or give credence to this pro-choice view) condone this with the unborn - eliminate it if you want to because it is less developed. YOU stand against providing this underdeveloped human being fundamental human rights to life.
    Environment - does a change of location (inside as opposed to outside the womb) make you more human?
    Dependency - is a baby less human than an adult because it is more dependent on another being for its existence?

    Now apply the SLED example philosophically to Hitler's Germany.

    Size - the majority (larger population by size in opinion)outweighed the Jews in determining their outcome.
    Level of Development - Hitler thought the Jew was a lesser form of life than the Arian race.
    Environment - Nazi Germany did not recognize the Jew as having the same rights as people did who lived in other cultures.
    Dependency - the Jews were dependent on the greater society for their very lives. Those in control determined the outcome for the Jew.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Let's see what embryology texts say about when a human life starts (I have included many quotes to show your bias)
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But none of this proves that a human fetus should have the legal right to life.
    So you are saying that not all innocent (not guilty of a crime) human beings have an equal right to live. Or are you saying that the unborn is guilty of the crime of size, level of development, environment, or dependency - SLED.

    Logical and legal can be two different things. Who makes the rules and are they rational? Science texts broadly agree that the unborn is a unique human being. Science is not involved in morality, to my knowledge. It tests a hypothesis and validates those conclusions via repeatability and observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Not true, IMO. In your devil's advocacy, you are taking a position that is in favor of recognizing the unborn as less than human (disposable and devalued) and less than a person by arguing against the pro-life stance. This position, or pure silence on the issue of it being wrong, does favor a side.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    I disagree. Only one side of the debate cannot support its position, IMO - pro-choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Legal right???

    So intrinsic value, for you, does not equate a legal right to life.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Are fertilized human eggs unique, individual human beings? Science text says yes. What say you?
    Are unfertilized human eggs unique separate, individual human beings? Science says yes. What say you?

    As for the rest of this hypothetical junk, I reject it. We are arguing for what is the case, not what it might be hypothetically, like a woman never producing any eggs and humanity not existing. Women do produce eggs and humanity does exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So no, I don't think that everything that has intrinsic value has a legal right to life.
    We are not arguing over "everything" having intrinsic value but over innocent human beings - human beings that have committed no crime but to exist and depend on others defending them.

    Are these fertilized eggs human beings?

    If so, you argue that some human beings do not have the same right to life that other human beings do. If you were a human being discriminated against (through no crime that you had committed, but for your right to exist) because someone else didn't like you or devalued you, and wanted to put you to death, would you still hold the same opinion? I doubt it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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?
    How is it a slippery slope? You say that particular human beings (unborn) do not have the same right to life that you do. That right to life has been legislated out of existence if a woman chooses to exercise it. The same was done to the Jews in Nazi Germany. Their lives were exercised out of existence by the gatekeepers of that society also.

    By not standing up for the right of the unborn it is you who creates the slippery slope, in my opinion.

    The difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized one is that the fertilized egg is a distinct, human being.

    The difference between a fertilized egg dying and choosing to put it to death is the difference between a biological function and a choice to murder another human being.

    I am not making my case for an unfertilized human egg. I am making my case for a unique, individual human being.

    What makes us as humans valuable?
    Do you have value and the right to life?
    What makes you different (in nature) now than the unborn you once were?

    SLED - size, level of development, environment, dependency.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    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 mican333 View Post
    I don't disagree with the text. But the texts did not say that abortion should be illegal.
    You bring into the equation whether science should be making moral choices. Should science determine right and wrong or should science stick to the facts - what is (as opposed to what should be), via repeatable and observable facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Is the fertilized human egg, the unborn, a unique human being?
    Is it living?
    If it is human, what makes it less valuable than you, another human being?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Under unique circumstances, I agree, such as when the woman's life is at risk and her death would mean the end of the unborn also. Other than this, what makes a woman choosing to kill an unborn human being any different than you or I in deciding to kill an innocent human being (one who has not committed a crime), unjustly.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    But you do disagree with the terms. You made a big song and dance over the terms in your first statement of this post.

    The terms are whether the unborn fertilized being inside the womb is human or not. If it is human, then why does it not have basic intrinsic human worth like you or I do?
    That is the slippery slope - once you go down this road, you open the door for discrimination against other human beings, as was done in those other societies I listed earlier.

    Did I make a valid argument - Is killing unborn human beings something that should be illegal (except in the case of the health of the mother that would result in the death of the unborn anyway)?

    I made the issue around whether the unborn is a human being or not, and when it becomes human.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You might have a different line where you think the law should offer restrictions but you can't really justify it any better than those who think the restrictions should apply at third trimester. You can use a different argument but ultimately the argument will be rooted in subjectivity.
    Objectively, does a new life begin at conception?
    Objectively, is that new life a human being?

    If so, then neither the first or third trimesters should be an excuse to take the human life.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So subjectively setting restrictions at the third trimester is not really different than setting it at conception.
    Again, restricting an argument to size (first as opposed to the third trimester) and level of development should not matter in determining whether a human being should live or die. This is what is being done with the unborn.

    This kind of logic that size or level of development matters is faulty because you only have to apply it (like I did in my last post) to other human beings who are smaller or less developed and treat them as you do the unborn by choosing whether they live or die.

    What makes their natures (a six-year-old or 13-year-old girl as opposed to a 20-year-old woman) any less human in nature than that of the unborn?

    ***

    On a side note, in my last post, I argue that it is you who is creating a fallacious slippery slope. My argument was that when one group of human beings is devalued it leaves reason to do so to other groups of human beings. If there is no intrinsic value in all groups of human beings, then why can't killing one group be done? If you are going to say that the unborn human being is of lesser value than a born human being, then why can't you make that distinction with other groups of human beings? There is a rational argument to support my view - the devaluing of groups of people by different regimes and beliefs around the world has led to mass killings (murder), or discrimination, or both.

    Slippery slope - "that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question."

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [1]When it comes to debates regarding abortion, there often seems to be a disagreement on what term to use when referring to the unborn.

    Pro-choicers tend to call it a "fetus" and pro-lifers often use the term "baby" or "child". And I've seen arguments flowing both ways of accusing the other of intentionally using the term which will help their viewpoint instead of using the most objectively correct term.

    [2] And I think a pretty simple way to determine whether one is accurately using the term in regards to the debate is to look how they use the term outside of the abortion debate.

    [3] So let's say someone is throwing a party and one of the guests says "I'm brining my baby along". What is clearly being communicated in this instance is that the person is bringing an infant, not a fetus. If the guest was pregnant and brining the fetus that resides in her womb with her, she would not say she is bringing her baby along and if she did say that, the host would be expecting her to bring along an infant as opposed to just being pregnant.

    So it seems pretty clear that the pro-lifers are altering the definition of the word "baby' when the use the term to communicate a fetus in the abortion debate and therefore are not using the term for accurate communication but to equivocate the fetus and a born child.
    [1] How about a human being, for that is what the unborn is. THAT is the heart of the issue. That and whether human beings have intrinsic value. If not, then what makes your life any more valuable than that of the unborn or anything else?

    [2] So I see you as saying that our inner beliefs should reflect or demonstrate our outer words.

    [3] But that does not change the nature of the being in either circumstance, before birth as opposed to after birth. We, as pro-lifers are not changing the being from human to some other form of life or devaluing it just because it is not born yet. YOU are devaluing it based on SLED (see video).

    Abortion is the biggest holocaust in the history of the world to date.

    http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/
    http://www.numberofabortions.com/

    Peter

  12. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You didn't ask me why it should be this way. You asked me why pro-choices have different standards for early-term and late-term pregnancies and I gave you a very accurate answer. You have in no way shown that it's inaccurate.
    And I appreciate your honesty. I merely wanted to point out, that it is an arbitrary standard, that's all.

    ---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    What doctor? And besides that, you did not rebut my question when you asked what conception means.
    again, this doctor:

    "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.”

    Doctor of the first human conceived outside of a human womb.
    Your insistence that this is not when life begins is very confusing to me (I was taught this in jr high, but that was some time ago...). It certainly does not begin in the third trimester???

    How about dictionary.com:

    noun
    1.
    the act of conceiving; the state of being conceived.
    2.
    fertilization; inception of pregnancy.
    5.
    origination; beginning:

    The beginning of pregnancy. Which is the beginning of a baby. Seems clear enough.

    This is how the term is commonly used (when discussing biology) For instance, what does Princeton have to say:

    https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...yoquotes2.html
    "At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun...."

    Also seems quite clear...
    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/4...at-conception/

    This (admittedly pro life site) links articles from Nature Mag, Nat'l Institute of Health, US Health and Human Serv and many other reputable sources.

    ---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I did not say that nature made a conscious choice. But I am saying that if one holds that it's a human being at the moment that sperm meets egg, they should be very upset that half of all embryos are killed by this natural process. And yet, I've never heard anyone ever express remorse over this. So I conclude that no one is too concerned about this which shows that people are not that invested in the life of the fetus at the moment that egg meets sperm. I mean are you particularly bothered that half of all human embryos die before birth?

    I can believe that you weren't bothered by this before because you were unaware of this fact (I just learned it recently myself). But now that you do know, do you have a problem with this?
    Of course it bothers me! Nature, by human standards is very uncaring and brutal. Watch a lion kill an antelope. It's absolutely savage (and unfortunately how earth is set up. life kills other life to stay alive). But this is all out of my control. The legality of a mother CHOOSING to pay someone to abort (kill) her fetus (unborn child) child I can have some effect on (though admittedly, not much).

    But nature, as you admit, doesn't "choose" for these embryos to die, so it really doesn't equate to abortion.

    The solution to this issue is contraception. You can't kill something that was never alive. If the effort put forth from the pro life and pro choice were put to this goal, we might have some real progress on the issue instead of just arguments and death.

  13. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And I appreciate your honesty. I merely wanted to point out, that it is an arbitrary standard, that's all.
    No, it's not an arbitrary standard. "Arbitrary" means "random" so an arbitrary standard on when a fetus should be entitled to legal rights of some kind would be one that is more or less random. But a standard that gives more rights the closer the fetus comes to viability is not random at all and can be logically explained.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    again, this doctor:

    "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.”

    Doctor of the first human conceived outside of a human womb.
    Your insistence that this is not when life begins is very confusing to me
    You are definitely confused because I never argued that that is not when life begins.

    I've never argued that a fetus with human DNA is not "human" and I never argued that it's not a "life". So now I believe that we have come to an understanding. If we define a "human life" as "that which is alive and has human DNA is a human life", then a human fetus is a human life.

    But I don't see how this solves the abortion controversy. As I've argued, it cannot be resolved as both sides ultimately have to resort to subjective standards to argue their side.

  14. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You are definitely confused because I never argued that that is not when life begins.
    Hmmm, maybe we are making progress

    If a human life begins at conception, there are current laws to protect it.

    ---------- Post added at 07:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If we define a "human life" as "that which is alive and has human DNA is a human life", then a human fetus is a human life.
    I have no idea why ANYONE would define a human in this way???????????

  15. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Hmmm, maybe we are making progress

    If a human life begins at conception, there are current laws to protect it.
    As far as I can tell, there are no laws protecting human life until it reaches at least the second trimester (I don't know exactly when the legal restrictions start).



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I have no idea why ANYONE would define a human in this way???????????
    It's about as technically accurate as I can conceive. "human life" is something that is human (so it has human DNA) and is alive.

    But I'm not married to this definition but we do need a consistent and unchanging definition. So I'll let you provide the definition of "human life". As long as it seems reasonable, I'll likely go with whatever you come up with.


    ================================================== =============

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So, you are doing the very thing the Nazis did with the Jews; you are using words to define particular persons out of existence or downgrade their human worth.
    False equivalency.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The unborn is either human or it is not human. You say it is human, do you not?

    I'll ask again. Is it human? This is the issue.
    If by "human" you mean does it have human DNA, then yes, it is human. If you mean something else by "human", you will need to explain your definition of the word.





    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If you admit (like so much scientific opinion does) that human life starts at conception, and then discriminate against the right of that being to live, what makes it 'wrong' to do so with other human beings? You are basing the right to life on the development of the human being (if you regard the nature of the being as a human at conception). If you are going to base the right to life on development (or under development), then surely you could justify that a young girl (who does not have reproductory organs as developed as a teenager or woman) should not have the same rights to life that these other two have. This is what you are doing in the case of the unborn.
    The pro-choice position is not based on development but whether it's inside or outside of the mother. So going by that, one cannot justify holding a different position on a young girl or a woman. They are both outside of their mother's body.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Size - does being larger than another person/human give you more rights than another person/human? Should it?
    Level of Development - is a 6-year-old girl less human than a 13-year-old or a 20-year-old woman because her reproductory tract is less developed.
    Do more intelligent people - more developed brains - have the right to eliminate the lesser intelligent (where does it end)? You (when you support or give credence to this pro-choice view) condone this with the unborn - eliminate it if you want to because it is less developed. YOU stand against providing this underdeveloped human being fundamental human rights to life.
    Environment - does a change of location (inside as opposed to outside the womb) make you more human?
    Dependency - is a baby less human than an adult because it is more dependent on another being for its existence?


    Now apply the SLED example philosophically to Hitler's Germany.

    Size - the majority (larger population by size in opinion)outweighed the Jews in determining their outcome.
    Level of Development - Hitler thought the Jew was a lesser form of life than the Arian race.
    Environment - Nazi Germany did not recognize the Jew as having the same rights as people did who lived in other cultures.
    Dependency - the Jews were dependent on the greater society for their very lives. Those in control determined the outcome for the Jew.
    False equivalency. The issues with the fetus are due to the natural state of the fetus. The state of the Jews in Nazi Germany was due to the state being imposed upon them by the choices of other people.

    This very significant difference renders the comparison invalid.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So you are saying that not all innocent (not guilty of a crime) human beings have an equal right to live. Or are you saying that the unborn is guilty of the crime of size, level of development, environment, or dependency
    Assuming that you are including the unborn under the term human beings, I will say that I can observe that unborn humans do not have a legal right to life (as in there is no legal principle giving them that right).

    BTW, I've not argued that abortion should be legal here. My position is that neither side can support their position without resorting to subjective reasoning.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Not true, IMO. In your devil's advocacy, you are taking a position that is in favor of recognizing the unborn as less than human (disposable and devalued) and less than a person by arguing against the pro-life stance. This position, or pure silence on the issue of it being wrong, does favor a side.
    Wrong. When I argue that abortion should be legal and attempt to support that argument, THEN I've taken the other side.

    Just telling you that your argument is ultimately subjective does not mean that the pro-choice side makes a better argument than the pro-life side. I hold that BOTH sides are subjective and therefore neither are superior than the other.

    The only reason I'm debating you on this is because you have chose to challenge my reasoning. If a pro-choicer attacked my position and attempted to argue that the pro-choice position is based on something other than opinion, then I'd be debating him.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I disagree. Only one side of the debate cannot support its position, IMO - pro-choice.
    IMO means "In my opinion". Your opinion is noted. But I'm interested in supported arguments.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Are fertilized human eggs unique, individual human beings? Science text says yes. What say you?
    Are unfertilized human eggs unique separate, individual human beings? Science says yes. What say you?

    As for the rest of this hypothetical junk, I reject it. We are arguing for what is the case, not what it might be hypothetically, like a woman never producing any eggs and humanity not existing. Women do produce eggs and humanity does exist.
    And those eggs have intrinsic value BEFORE they are fertilized. Again, without those pre-fertilized eggs the human race would not exist.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    We are not arguing over "everything" having intrinsic value but over innocent human beings - human beings that have committed no crime but to exist and depend on others defending them.

    Are these fertilized eggs human beings?

    If so, you argue that some human beings do not have the same right to life that other human beings do. If you were a human being discriminated against (through no crime that you had committed, but for your right to exist) because someone else didn't like you or devalued you, and wanted to put you to death, would you still hold the same opinion? I doubt it.
    But then I acknowledge the difference between the born and the unborn. And while pro-choicers do generally think that the unborn deserve the legal right to life, I don't think they hold that the born and unborn are equal.

    Let me present a scenario. Three women who have just conceived a human being each hold a morning after pill in their hands. Another woman has a newborn baby in her hands and a cup of poison. The woman with the newborn says that she will kill her baby unless the three pregnant women take their morning after pills which will kill all three fetuses inside them. It's your choice on whether the three women take the pills and end their pregnancy or the woman with the newborn kills her baby with the poison. Which do you choose?

    Obviously, if all four "human beings" have equal value, the clear choice is to have the mother kill her newborn and let the three other women carry their pregnancies to term (even if one of the pregnancies goes wrong, the other two will give birth). So would you let the newborn die to save the other three fetuses? If it's true that all human beings have equal value, you'd have to. And yet I'm guessing that almost all pro-lifers (I won't speak for you) would save the newborn over the three fetuses. And that's because it's not generally agreed that these human beings have equal value.







    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    The difference between a fertilized egg dying and choosing to put it to death is the difference between a biological function and a choice to murder another human being.
    But if our concern is for its life as opposed to how it dies, then whether it dies by natural causes or is killed by the hands of another makes little difference.

    A father who loses his daughter to a disease or to a killer will be heart-broken either way. Sure, death by killer is worse on some level but the killer is not the primary source of the tragedy - it's the death itself that is the most horrible thing about it.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You bring into the equation whether science should be making moral choices. Should science determine right and wrong or should science stick to the facts - what is (as opposed to what should be), via repeatable and observable facts.
    Now here is where I agree with you. Science does not make a moral choice and therefore no scientific fact, by itself, can generate a moral argument for or against legalized abortion. So you just presenting a scientific fact does not equate an argument against abortion.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Under unique circumstances, I agree, such as when the woman's life is at risk and her death would mean the end of the unborn also. Other than this, what makes a woman choosing to kill an unborn human being any different than you or I in deciding to kill an innocent human being (one who has not committed a crime), unjustly.
    You tell me. You are the one who is making an argument about whether abortion should or should not be illegal. Remember, I'm not actually taking a side and therefore have no responsibility to tell you why I think abortion should or should not be illegal.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    But you do disagree with the terms. You made a big song and dance over the terms in your first statement of this post.

    The terms are whether the unborn fertilized being inside the womb is human or not. If it is human, then why does it not have basic intrinsic human worth like you or I do?
    In a legal sense, it's because there is a broad moral opinion that the unborn should not have the legal right to life


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    That is the slippery slope - once you go down this road, you open the door for discrimination against other human beings, as was done in those other societies I listed earlier.
    Those those other societies first legalized abortion and then used the same philosophical/legal basis they used to legalize abortion to create laws against certain born humans? If that's your assertion, please support it.

    If you are just saying that A will lead to B because you can find some kind of similarity between the two, then you are indeed engaging in the slippery slope fallacy.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Objectively, does a new life begin at conception?
    Objectively, is that new life a human being?

    If so, then neither the first or third trimesters should be an excuse to take the human life.
    First off, whether it's called a "human being" is a semantic issue and therefore is not objective (people call things what they choose to call things).

    And the fact that your conclusion is a moral statement (contains the word "should") and therefore is subjective.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    This kind of logic that size or level of development matters is faulty because you only have to apply it (like I did in my last post) to other human beings who are smaller or less developed and treat them as you do the unborn by choosing whether they live or die.

    What makes their natures (a six-year-old or 13-year-old girl as opposed to a 20-year-old woman) any less human in nature than that of the unborn?
    Since no one has argued that a younger child is any less of a human being than an adult, nor does the pro-choice position necessitate this position, your question is based on a false premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    On a side note, in my last post, I argue that it is you who is creating a fallacious slippery slope. My argument was that when one group of human beings is devalued it leaves reason to do so to other groups of human beings.
    And when you support this position, I'll respond to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If you are going to say that the unborn human being is of lesser value than a born human being, then why can't you make that distinction with other groups of human beings?
    One can devalue other human beings without first devaluing the unborn. You have not supported that legalized abortion increases the likelihood of people putting less value of other born human beings. You just claimed it without providing support.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    There is a rational argument to support my view - the devaluing of groups of people by different regimes and beliefs around the world has led to mass killings (murder), or discrimination, or both.
    Devaluing a group of people has lead to the killing of those particular people. The devaluing of Jews by the Nazis lead to the Holocaust. But you have NOT shown that not valuing the unborn has EVER lead to the devaluing of a certain group of born people. Seriously, are you arguing that in Germany abortion was legal and then it was outlawed and the devaluing of unborn human lives gave people license to devalue Jews and that lead to the Holocaust? If so, please support this assertion (or show an example of a different atrocity that started like that). If not, then you have provided no evidence that not valuing the unborn the same as the born will lead to devaluing certain groups of born humans.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Slippery slope - "that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question."
    Right. You've presented no rational argument or demonstrable mechanism that supports that abortion will, or ever has, lead to the killing of any group of born humans.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [1] How about a human being, for that is what the unborn is. THAT is the heart of the issue. That and whether human beings have intrinsic value. If not, then what makes your life any more valuable than that of the unborn or anything else?

    [2] So I see you as saying that our inner beliefs should reflect or demonstrate our outer words.

    [3] But that does not change the nature of the being in either circumstance, before birth as opposed to after birth. We, as pro-lifers are not changing the being from human to some other form of life or devaluing it just because it is not born yet.
    But then you have not supported the the unborn are of a greater value than the born. You are only opining that it's of equal value (and I'm guessing my three pregnant women vs a born baby would reveal that it's not entirely equal) and therefore your argument is subjective.

    If it's your OPINION that the born and unborn are of equal value, fair enough. But that's still a subjective notion. And likewise the pro-choice notion that the born deserve greater protection than the unborn is a subjective notion.
    Last edited by mican333; November 20th, 2017 at 08:59 PM.

  16. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terms in the abortion debate

    There is a lot to unpack here, and you are asking for a validation of specific comparisons. I will get back to you in a couple of days.

    Peter

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

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
  •