henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:27 pm
Can I get any agreement on this from anyone? Lace? B? Dub? -1-? Anyone?
There's a big difference between "I don't know this is evil," and "I know, but I don't care that this is evil." And it says a whole lot about the person you're talking to, depending on which one they are really responding with.
If it's the first one, they keep answering simple and obvious moral questions, because they want to get more information, think the thing through carefully, and thereby confirm the right position. In the second case, people refuse to respond not for reason of truth or goodness, but strategically -- because there's no answer they can give that they know will allow them to continue to appear to be moral.
But let's suppose they got it wrong, somehow. Let's say there were only 10 families waiting for every healthy infant. What are the chances that one in those 10 isn't suitable for adopting, and that the 9 from the next child are all also unsuitable, and the 9 from the child next to that are all unsuitable too...
And all of them are so bad that being murdered is better than becoming their child?
Got any odds on such a thing?
Who is murdering babies? Nobody. We are talking about abortions, which have nothing to do with babies.
Nice side-tracking of the issue, Immie. You are a clever and astute person to argue with, and it's more thanks to the fact that you are incredibly skilled in using fallacious reasoning without the opponent's noticing it.
Poor Belinda, here, took the bait, line, hook and sinker, without noticing the Strawman you've committed in the argument.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:01 pm
Really, if the thread annoys, if my approach annoys, there are other threads to trundle 'round in. Absolutely, you can both hang out 'here', givin' me the business, but I'm not seein' the point.
It's clear that you don't see the point. But other people might appreciate a thoughtful discussion which considers various views, and which challenges the limited thinking of one view.
It is surprising that you think a choice of A or B is actually sufficient in considering the range of possibilities regarding life and nature.
-1- wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:22 pm
We are talking about abortions, which have nothing to do with babies.
Really? Just how did you arrive at that?
Essentially, you claim you know for a fact that a fetus...even a third trimester, late one...is not a human being. Otherwise, "babies" are exactly what we're talking about. If you have good reasons for your confidence, reasons we ought to believe, that will solve everybody's dilemma instantly.
So please share the line of rational inquiry that has proved this to you.
If what a pregnant woman carries is a person, then that would be the abortionist, yeah?
#
Lace,
"It is surprising that you think a choice of A or B is actually sufficient in considering the range of possibilities regarding life and nature."
We're talkin' about a finite time frame (nine months) and a specific 'thing' (human cells or person).
Seems to me the 'range of possibilities' is narrow.
##
Certainly, from week 12 on, all the biological machinery (organs, nervous system, brain, etc.) is substantially in place. Purely from a materialist's point of view, the things needed for 'personhood' are in place. Even the most hard-nosed commie atheist thug should be uncomfortable asserting what a pregnant woman carries from week 12 on is not a person.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:56 pm
Certainly, from week 12 on, all the biological machinery (organs, nervous system, brain, etc.) is substantially in place. Purely from a materialist's point of view, the things needed for 'personhood' are in place.
Generally speaking... here's how I view the unborn: Such is a FORM of a developing human in process/transition (organic matter)... it is not a complete human... it is not a conscious human... it is not born into the world (therefore, the concept of "murder" doesn't apply). I have never had an abortion, and I wouldn't advocate anyone to do so thoughtlessly -- but I support the PHYSICAL HOST'S (women's) choice on whether to carry, deliver, and be responsible for another being coming into this world.
And "spiritually", if I may imagine such a thing, I think the BEING would understand and allow that the door of entry to be closed if the host didn't want to provide entry. It seems unlikely that any human being would DEMAND TO BE BORN into an environment that wasn't "right" for it. NATURE naturally balances itself all the time, and it's not considered horrific. WE ARE NATURE!!! So the whole argument about abortion being murder seems melodramatic and religiously manic. If such people really care about LIFE, care about EVERYONE and ALL OF NATURE that is already RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!
From 12 weeks on what a pregnant woman carries most certainly is a complete human. The fetus-person is underdeveloped, sure, but it is 'complete'.
#
"it is not a conscious human"
Not as you and I reckon it, no. But the fetus-person has complex brain activity. Lil fetus-person probably experiences an extended dream state. Not consciousness as you and I know it, but consciousness.
#
"it is not born into the world (therefore, the concept of "murder" doesn't apply)."
If fetus-person 'is' a person, then -- yeah -- 'murder' (as in killing an innocent) does apply. The location where an innocent person is killed (on a street corner or in a womb) has no bearing.
#
"I support the PHYSICAL HOST'S (women's) choice on whether to carry, deliver, and be responsible for another being coming into this world."
I believe a woman can do with herself as she likes. I don't believe she can do with another as she likes. Jane can't off her 97 year old invalid mom or her six month old son cuz it's inconvenient to care for either, and she shouldn't be able to off an unborn human being cuz it's inconvenient to be pregnant.
#
"I think the BEING would understand and allow that the door of entry to be closed if the host didn't want to provide entry."
It's normal and natural for a human being to want to live. I think fetus-person, given the chance, would tell mom, "I want to live!"
#
"It seems unlikely that any human being would DEMAND TO BE BORN into an environment that wasn't "right" for it."
People want to live. They wanted to live in the concentration camps. They want to live while sittin' on death row. It is very likely any human would demand to be born, even if the circumstances born into were deplorable.
#
"So the whole argument about abortion being murder seems melodramatic and religiously manic."
I'm a deist, true, but the whole of my position falls neatly under 'natural right libertarianism' (self-ownership and the right to life, liberty, and property extending from self-ownership).
#
"If such people really care about LIFE, care about EVERYONE and ALL OF NATURE that is already RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!"
Most of the religious folks I'm acquainted with care about people right here and now. Unlike you, they count the unborn as people.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:49 pm
From 12 weeks on what a pregnant woman carries most certainly is a complete human. The fetus-person is underdeveloped, sure, but it is 'complete'.
Many people would say that if something is underdeveloped and STILL IN DEVELOPMENT, it is NOT complete. So you're making up your own definitions and rules.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:49 pm
Lacewing said: "it is not a conscious human"
Not as you and I reckon it, no.
All different kinds of life has SOME kind of awareness. I don't see you rallying to protect it. Yet, you get all goo-goo over a fetus.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:49 pm
If fetus-person 'is' a person, then -- yeah -- 'murder' (as in killing an innocent) does apply.
IF...MAYBE...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. This is what you're making up so that you can pretend to give a crap about anything. It's organic matter that is in development JUST LIKE all other kinds of reproductive development in nature.
Again, where is your compassion and rallying cry for people who are already here, Henry?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:49 pmI believe a woman can do with herself as she likes.
If YOU got pregnant from having sex despite your efforts to avoid it, would YOU have the right to say "no", and would you want other people telling you how to use your body? You, Mr. Don't Tread on Me for nuthin, nohow? And then what if you got raped, and it happened again? Are you just going to be a birthing vessel against your will? Doesn't sound like that fits your personality, Henry. I'm guessing you'd have a different perspective if it involved you in such a personal and all-consuming way.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:49 pmI think fetus-person, given the chance, would tell mom, "I want to live!"
That's selfish. I think beings are naturally more compassionate than that. I wouldn't insist that my mom have me if she was against it.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:49 pmIt is very likely any human would demand to be born
Based on what? Some dreams the fetus has of what their life could be like? Really? I think it's more logical to recognize that nature flows cooperatively when egos aren't involved. Only egos demand things.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:49 pmI'm a deist, true, but the whole of my position falls neatly under 'natural right libertarianism' (self-ownership and the right to life, liberty, and property extending from self-ownership).
I would be more interested in your position after you've been pregnant a few times against your will.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:49 pm
Most of the religious folks I'm acquainted with care about people right here and now.
"So you're making up your own definitions and rules."
underdeveloped = not fully developed
incomplete = not complete
The two are not synonomous.
#
"you get all goo-goo over a fetus"
I get all goo-goo over a fetus cuz it's 'human'. It's not a dog, porpoise, or platypus: it's human. Is there no difference between an unborn human and and unborn cat to you?
#
"This is what you're making up so that you can pretend to give a crap about anything"
Why would I pretend to care about anything? In this thread, for example, my 'caring' has to led to my being insulted and dismissed by mostly everyone. Why would I pretend to care if it nets me nada?
#
"where is your compassion and rallying cry for people who are already here, Henry?"
Well, this thread is pretty specific when it comes to topic, so that's one big reason. Tell you what: gimme some specific examples of people who are here who deserve my attention, compassion, sympathy, and I'll address those examples.
#
"If YOU got pregnant from having sex despite your efforts to avoid it, would YOU have the right to say "no", and would you want other people telling you how to use your body?"
If I were a woman with the common, basic, bit of info, 'sex leads to babies', I think I'd be damned careful. I wouldn't get pregnant unless I wanted to. As a man with the common, basic, bit of info, 'sex leads to babies', I have been careful. I've made no babies.
#
"And then what if you got raped, and it happened again?"
That's a tiresome fall back.
Look here...
638,169 abortions were performed in the U.S., in 2015.
90,185 rapes were reported to law enforcement in the U.S., in 2015.
Yes, I know, those are reported rapes...what of those not reported?
Go ahead and triple the reported rapes, then round up to an even 300,000.
Assuming all those rapes resulted in pregnancy and that all those pregnancies resulted in abortions, and you still have 300,000 plus abortions done for some other reason.
Say 200,000 of those 300,000 remaining abortions are done for medical reasons: that leaves a little over 100,000 abortions done not out of neccessity but for convenience.
Rape is awful, but it's not the driver of abortions.
#
"I wouldn't insist that my mom have me if she was against it."
Then you're the exception.
#
"Only egos demand things"
Even an egoless amoeba strives for life.
#
"I would be more interested in your position after you've been pregnant a few times against your will."
Have you been pregnant a few times against your will? If not: then why should I be interested in your positions?
Henry... I think you're being thick and shifty -- which, despite the humor factor, is increasingly tiresome. You appear to lack/refuse the capacity of putting yourself in another's position -- and you think people must DESERVE your compassion, which is laughable. Yet, here you are championing fetuses. It's bizarre.
I'm going to have fun doing something else now... so someone else can play with you if they want to.
The bond between parent and child is real, but isn't ownership.
And: I believe from 12 weeks on (and probably well before that) a pregnant woman carries a person, not a potential person, or a possible person, but an actual person. I believe this person owns himself. I believe this person ought not get off'd without just cause.
-1- wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:22 pm
We are talking about abortions, which have nothing to do with babies.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:23 pmReally? Just how did you arrive at that?
Essentially, you claim you know for a fact that a fetus...even a third trimester, late one...is not a human being. Otherwise, "babies" are exactly what we're talking about. If you have good reasons for your confidence, reasons we ought to believe, that will solve everybody's dilemma instantly.
So please share the line of rational inquiry that has proved this to you.
