Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/21/10 11:45 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Neither the point I was making, nor the elaboration of it, lent itself explicitly to either side. You're telling me something to the effect of, "You're so bad at communicating. I mean, your explanation of addition gives me no information about what you think of alligators."

In case you didn't notice, this is a topic about abortion, not alligators. Seriously, I'm really not sure you noticed.

Secondly, I just wanted to see you elaborate on your position

I was elaborating on my position. It just wasn't the position you wanted me to elaborate on.

or the one the topic creator asked people to elaborate on in the OP

Failing to explain? I was under the impression that you supposedly understood what I was explaining,

I understood perfectly from the beginning, but the fact is you still flailed around like a fish with Parkinsons's trying to explain it anyway.

At 11/21/10 07:51 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

I never thought they were, interestingly enough I waste 2 pages failing to explain that like you did.

..didn't waste, even

At 11/20/10 05:54 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Well, first of all, it is telling that you're were so incompetent at getting your point across that I thought you were pro-life. Secondly, I just wanted to see you elaborate on your position, not have some autistic meltdown about logic.

The latter is apparent in the following: "while I guess that believing those things would be a logical implication of my personal beliefs about abortion/fetal rights, they're not required to be pro-choice."

I never thought they were, interestingly enough I waste 2 pages failing to explain that like you did.

At 11/20/10 12:54 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

You spend pages essentially making the argument that everything I say is off topic unless it's explicitly divulging my personal position, and then after all that make the argument that a personal position is not essential to discussing the philosophy.

For somebody who enjoys writing so much text, your certainly lack for reading comprehension.

At 11/20/10 12:43 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/20/10 04:45 AM, The-General-Public wrote:

You really don't realize that's the argument that drove you nuts when you were dealing with me - the approach you thought was evasive, that you thought proved that I just didn't think through anything?

Jesus.

What drove me nuts was that you were wasting my time with a high school lesson on logic when all I was interested in was how you felt about abortion. Fortunately, I've learned to only skim your posts instead of actually wasting even more time reading them all the way through. You and I are in complete agreement on nearly every issue in this topic. I can just explain my reasoning without coming across as a pseudo-intellectual pedant.

At 11/19/10 08:21 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
Oh come on!

What?

At 11/18/10 09:24 PM, Gario wrote:

Beware, though, that if you don't agree with it your basically saying that people as a collective whole care as much if not more for non-humans than for humans, which doesn't sound correct. I can't (or, more accurately, won't) argue against your argument, but I probably won't agree with you, either.

People as a collective whole care far more about persons than non-persons. We care more for children and adults than animals. And there are far more laws on the books about animal cruelty than fetal cruelty.

:there is a tendency for people to treat humans as 'persons', due to the sole fact that they share a common species.

If you're extending that to fetuses, you're really gonna need to back that up.

... Well, frankly that's where your argument has it's flaws. The problem is that humanity doesn't reach a level that is uniquely 'human' until the person reaches an age of close to two years. By definition of intelligence, most pigs are considerably more intelligent that an infant, so by that logic the pig should have more rights than a human infant

I certainly don't expect anyone here to agree with me when I say that pigs should have rights, or that infants aren't equal to an adult person in terms of personhood, but while I guess that believing those things would be a logical implication of my personal beliefs about abortion/fetal rights, they're not required to be pro-choice.

If you really want me to back this up, take it one point at a time. I'm not going to go through every single point in a single sitting, since that would take too much of my time (I have other things to do than argue, y'know).

I really don't want to get into a discussion on vegetarianism on here of all places. So I pass.

Humans are given rights because of their association to their own species - it is beneficial to give people more rights than an animal since giving animals equal rights restricts people from exploiting them for their own gain.

it's beneficial to give adults more rights than fetuses because giving fetuses rights restricts women from aborting them for their own gain.

using any other method to define personhood makes very little sense (as explained above). I don't think it's really been explained properly why beginning personhood rights at the fetus is a bad thing (all I hear so far is the clamoring of pro-choice people saying it's TERRIBLE... then failing to provide any sound reasoning behind it).

Using any method to define personhood makes little sense(not that I don't see the virtue in trying). Personhood is an arbitrary concept with arbitrary borders, the question that we need to concern ourselves with is how the legality of abortion affects our society.

At 11/18/10 01:30 AM, Gario wrote:

Since you agree that the fetus is a human, this contradiction is actually something I'm not responsible for answering - I don't know why pro-choice people act illogically, nor should I care.

You assume that they're acting illogically when there's no contradiction at all. It's merely a matter of priorities. I think a dog is more similar to a person than a fetus, you don't. I believe that it's a good idea to confer more rights upon beings that can experience pain, pleasure than on beings that can't you don't. You believe in some kind of Platonic ideal of person-hood, I don't. Deciding that person-hood begins at birth is nothing more than a social convention, but so is person-hood. I simply believe that the benefits of saying that a person's life begins at birth rather than conception is better for society, those I care about, and myself.

:The burden of proof is on your table
If I recall correctly, you were saying that humans inherently held that the right to life of all members of their species were more important than personal rights to autonomy, or the rights of animals. I'm still waiting for evidence of that. I don't care if you find it illogical that some people value the lives of animals more than they value the lives of fetuses, I'm asking you to explain how this is possible if your example is true. If you can't explain it, than stop claiming it.

I also remember you saying for some reason that because of the fact that humans naturally treated members of their species as people, regardless of whether they had been born or not(still waiting on proof of that), that it was somehow morally "right" that we protected fetuses. I'd still like to hear your reasoning behind that.

Explain why this situation exists, for me, or (more likely)

I find a dog to be closer to a person than a fetus, simple enough. I find a chimpanzee or a dolphin to be closer to a person than a dog. I use intelligence, ability to communicate and reason, and ability to hold preferences(among many of things) as the criteria to judge person-hood by, you're free to choose your own of course, but stop believing in silly things like that your position is any more logical than mine, or that as a human, I have to necessarily see the life of a fetus as equivalent to the life of an adult.

at least continue to attack my own reasoning behind why humans have 'natural' rights

You have an open invitation to explain why you believe such a thing, please enlighten me.

At 11/18/10 12:50 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/17/10 11:59 PM, The-General-Public wrote: ok, now explain why. God it's like pulling teeth with you

Opportunism. It is in my interest to maintain as much control over my way of life as society permits. Wide spread support for abortion legitimizes that interest.

Thank You.

At 11/17/10 11:37 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/17/10 11:26 PM, The-General-Public wrote: I get the feeling at this point I could ask you "What is your opinion on the legality of abortion"

I'm pro-choice. Does that count as an actual answer?

ok, now explain why. God it's like pulling teeth with you

At 11/17/10 10:03 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/17/10 08:35 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Or you could actually talk about your opinions on abortion, but yeah, whatever.

I have been, but it's difficult when apparently only direct moral justification satisfies your idea of being on topic, and you disregard premises for moral scrutiny as being off topic. It's also difficult when you conflate positive and normative.

I get the feeling at this point I could ask you "What is your opinion on the legality of abortion" and you still couldn't give me an actual answer. I'm starting to think you're just autistic.

At 11/17/10 06:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/17/10 02:32 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Well what else is there when we're discussing morals?

If I explain this again, will you blanket everything I say as off topic in two pages, then ask me again for the explanation in three?

Or you could actually talk about your opinions on abortion, but yeah, whatever.

At 11/17/10 02:38 AM, Gario wrote:

Why do we care more for something that is human over something that is non-human? Who knows, but you can easily observe that most humans place humans above non-humans

Doesn't the fact that the majority of Americans support Roe v Wade being upheld contradict that statement? A fetus is unquestionably biologically human, but it doesn't have the same rights as an adult, or even an infant, why?

Aha, here is the very point you're missing - the pro-choice movement (at least, everyone that's posted on here + anyone that I've seen so far, except possibly Bacchanalian) goes as far as to redefine what is considered human so that aborting the fetus isn't seen as 'killing a human', anymore.

I think that a fetus is human, I just don't think it's a person.

At 11/17/10 02:03 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: moral justification is not the extent of scrutiny.

Well what else is there when we're discussing morals?

At 11/17/10 01:44 AM, The-General-Public wrote: And it's also one that I'm skeptical of, as I doubt that there has never existed a person who was pro-choice and a vegetarian, or pro-choice and kept and cared for a pet.

False dilemma again.

I was saying that the evidence for his statements was unconvincing, nothing else. For somebody who likes to use logical terminology a lot, you're really bad at it.

At 11/17/10 01:12 AM, Gario wrote:

Because it's human, and humanity tends to value human life over the lives of other non-human creatures not because of any inherent ability that the humans possess, but by the simple virtue that they are the same species.

That's not the normative statement that I was looking for. And it's also one that I'm skeptical of, as I doubt that there has never existed a person who was pro-choice and a vegetarian, or pro-choice and kept and cared for a pet.

At 11/17/10 12:51 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Going back to condition x. If one values human life over a microbe's, then it is absolutely coherent to use mouthwash. Despite the word abortion not being in that sentence, I think the relevance is pretty clear. At least, it was clear enough at 9:29 PM on the 10th.

At 11/10/10 08:55 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

why does a human fetus deserve more care than another living creature?

At 11/16/10 11:55 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Now try to actually contribute something useful to this conversation.

i.e. demonstrate one of several flaws in one or several pro-life justifications?

i.e. stop posting off-topic rants about logic and actually address the OP

At 11/16/10 02:01 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

You've proven that you've taken a high school course on logic, congratulations. Now try to actually contribute something useful to this conversation.

I just wanted to hear a clarification of your viewpoint, the fact that you're so defensive seems to be indication that your point-of-view is shallower than I expected though

I already called it shallow. Though honestly, I'm not so sure what the big deal is about a lack of normative depth.

The unexamined life isn't worth living. And I'm becoming more and more sure that your posts aren't worth reading.

At 11/16/10 08:25 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So you DON'T have a right to life. You just want one. That's a ridiculous answer.

It's pretty ridiculous that you believe rights have to have some supernatural origin to be valid.

Regardless, my point is irrefutable. We either have God given rights (I believe we do)

why do you believe that?

or we have no rights at all.

You still think rights need to be given by God to be valid, keep trying.

"Rights" that can be taken away are not rights. They're nicities. Society can vote them away tomorrow.

Something that society can take away is not a right.

Society has violated every single right in the Constitution multiple times, your own line of argument is better at proving the strawman you've created for me than your own point

It's a privledge or grant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
Please learn what rights are

Nothing in my argument was incorrect. I think you're just incapable of arguing your point. Next?

Well aside when you called bullshit on the statistics I gave you without actually bothering to research anything. But then again actually having a clue what you're talking about isn't one of your strong points.

Yes, but I respect that my mother had the right to abort me if she wanted.

Then you're a moron

I'm starting to think "you're a moron" is code for "I have no idea what I'm talking about" That would be a much better thing for you to say when you completely fail at countering my points like you have thus far.

And by this simple admission, you have no rights. I can kill you tomorrow by your logic.

I had no rights when "I" was a fetus. Last I checked I wasn't. I don't know about you however, with your rhetorical skill, you may still have the mental capacity of one.

Yet, it's IMPOSSIBLE to justify morality without religion. I've heard tens of thousands of athiests try. Not a single one can mount a convincing defense.

If you'd really heard tens of thousands of atheists try, I would've thought you've learned how to spell the word right.

After all, every great Athiest thinker in history has poo-pooed the idea of morality.

Like who? Carl Sagan? Peter Singer? Daniel Dennett? Do you even know who any of those people are?

You gavce yet to argue anything to the contrary. You are one of the most pathetic debaters ever.

When your argument can be proven wrong by just looking up the definition of the word "rights" in the dictionary, I don't really need to expend any more effort than that.

Um, no it doesn't. Abortion is mentioned NOWHERE in the Constitution. Idiot.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964 /1964_496
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971 /1971_70_18

The Supreme Court disagrees

I didn't prove your point imbecile. You're just simply unable to argue your case. I expect no less from a moral relativist.

You actually did. You believe that your particular moral philosophy, which has only existed for an insignificant time is actually divinely inspired by God himself. Regardless of the fact that your philosophy is closer to that of a serial killer likeTed Bundy than an actual functioning human being's, it's still very silly.

At 11/16/10 01:40 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

You: Answer this question or you're wrong about condition x.
Me: That question doesn't have to be answered in order to provide for condition x.
You: I don't care, answer the question or you're wrong about condition x.

I don't even remember what condition x is, I just wanted to hear a clarification of your viewpoint, the fact that you're so defensive seems to be indication that your point-of-view is shallower than I expected though

At 11/16/10 02:07 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

1. You're not just asking a question.

I don't remember doing anything besides asking a question, and then banging my head on the wall while you argued in circles to justify your reluctance to answering it.

2. You're presuming that I'm afraid to answer it.

If you're not, you're doing a very good job of hiding it.

3. You're ignoring my case as to why I am not answering it.

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not ignoring it. Your think I'm trying to pull out some mortal logical flaw in your argument (of which I'm sure plenty abound) when I'm only asking a clarification of your position. The fact that you're so defensive is more an indication that your position(whatever it may be) is nonsense that can't stand up to scrutiny.

At 11/16/10 03:55 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Sure it does. Do you have a right to life? Or does society get to vote that away?

I want to have the right to life, so I'll personally fight to defend it.

Our rights are decided (I'm American) by God. We are given certain inalienable rights that no government can take away. Among them are life, property, and doing what we will with our money.

10,000 years of human history, and these rights have only been considered sacrosanct for about 200 of them. Your god is pretty bad at his job. Also, the fact that you've had to use your religion to explain your position so quickly shows the actual poverty of your argument.

Yet it's still irrelevant. Next?

Just reminding you that you were wrong, but I think you're starting to realize that about your entire argument.

Why? They can't feel. They can't contribute. They don't deserve much by what you've said.

Stephen Hawking would be hurt by that.

That is...wow. Did you get born? I think you did.

Yes, but I respect that my mother had the right to abort me if she wanted.
..

"Religious nonsense" is forced onto people all the time. You shall not kill, or rape, or rob. Etc. The HORRORS!

I'm not religious, I'm personally against murder, rape, and theft. If you need religion to justify your morality, you probably might want to see a psychologist.

The question is: Does one person have the right to take away the rights of another? Our society (limitedly) says no. So Abortion is a moral wrong and must be stopped.

That is an amazingly stupid question on a variety of levels. If we o not have God given rights...we do not have rights. It's really that simple.

If you keep saying that, it might become true eventually(not really)

If society gets to vote on our rights (the Constitution says they can;t, but moving on)
The Constitution was created by humans, using their reason and intellect to decide how to create the best possible society. In addition, the Constitution actually protects a woman's right to abortion, so apparently women have a god-given right to get abortion. Damn, sucks to have your own logic(if you can even call it that) used against you, huh?

then our "rights" are the simple whim of society. You may get to live today and die tomorrow. Nothing is right or wrong, just whatever society says is cool. Thus, slavery, abortion, genocide, all are completely ok!

All of those things have been considered "ok" for most of human history, way to prove my point.

At 11/15/10 07:10 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/15/10 06:49 PM, The-General-Public wrote: skimmed through all that, you haven't answered my question. Are you going to tell me why you believe a human life is worth more than a microbes now?

The question and the answer to the question are non-essential for logical consistency in dealing with living things in general. The reason why as already been explained, but I could try again.

The fact that I don't care has been explained, I'm just asking a question. Why are you afraid of answering it?

At 11/15/10 06:50 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

So then we don't have rights.

Because if rights come from society, not from nature, we hve no rights. Society can vote them away. Rights are non-existant.

That doesn't follow. Our rights are decided upon by society. Australia's tax law doesn't come from nature, are you saying that you don't have to pay taxes?

The thalamic connections between the nerves and the cortex don't form until the early third trimester. 99.91 percent of abortions take place well before that point.

That's a neat ( and completely wrong) statistic. Yet it's irrelevant.

you're right, I was slightly off after the decimal point.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html

That's moronic. Thanks. Moving on.

Not as moronic as equating a paralyzed person to a fetus.

Gotcha. So as long as something never affects you, it's irrelevant. You're a moron.

Your flimsy retort non-withstanding, I care about the rights of women who are having religious nonsense enforced on their bodies despite the fact that I'll never get pregnant. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" I don't society to force me to carry and give birth to a child, so I don't expect to be able to force women to carry and give birth to children. Simple enough rule.

Scientific fact. Sorry, imbecile.

Can you link me a study showing that God gave us rights? I'm curious.

At 11/15/10 06:37 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Oh and, I realize, General Public, that there's a virtually limitless set of illogical ways to arrive at a conclusion, so I realize that the generalization in my last post is somewhat flawed. However, from what you've so far posted I think it's pretty clear you've got some explicit inconsistency (or inconsistencies) in mind. You'd have to in order to claim that using mouth wash would violate pro-life philosophy.

skimmed through all that, you haven't answered my question. Are you going to tell me why you believe a human life is worth more than a microbes now?

At 11/15/10 05:48 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

So we do not have rights then? Because few of us help anyone other than ourselves? Do our rights begin when we begin helping others?

Your rights begin where society, using reason, compassion, and logic has come to a consensus on when one's rights begin.

At 11/13/10 05:47 PM, The-General-Public wrote: I'm just asking you to explain why you think that a Fetus deserves legal protection despite the fact that it can't think, feel, or express any preferences in regards to being aborted or not. From the way you keep evading the question, it seems to me like you don't have an answer and are trying very hard to hide it.

Some fetuses can do everything that you described, and some cannot.

The thalamic connections between the nerves and the cortex don't form until the early third trimester. 99.91 percent of abortions take place well before that point.

Just as some fully born people can and some cannot. Is feeling something required to be human?

no, a fetus is biologically human, I just don't see a reason it should have rights equal, and in fact surpassing that of an adult woman.

If so, what about paralyzed people?

I'll ask a paralyzed person if he wants me to kill him, you can ask a fetus if it wants you to abort it.

If conscious thought...are those in comas human?

Human yes, deserving of legal rights? I don't know. As I may someday end up in a coma, I'd like to think that my living will, or the wishes of my family members were respected. As I'll never be a fetus physically attached to someone, I'm happy to decline crusading for fetal rights.

Abortion robs a human being of their god given right to live

Prove it

I wouldn't have a problem with voting for one

At 11/14/10 06:04 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Empirical, scientific, or objective bases may suggest or invalidate certain moral avenues, but are not in and of themselves moral imperatives. Positive vs normative. They can inform each other, but not replace.

That's great. I don't care. Do you actually have any opinion at all on the actual topic?

At 11/14/10 04:22 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/13/10 08:59 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Why?

Morality is arbitrarily finite, because it begs an infinite regression.

No it doesn't, I'm just asking why you think that fetuses deserve rights. Like I said eariler, it seems you can't do that, so maybe you should examine your beliefs better.

At 11/13/10 05:58 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Cause if my assumption is correct I'm not actually evading the question, but rather ruling it out as being requisite for logical coherence regarding the given subject.

Why?