If you believe that a fetus, incapable of thought, feeling, or the ability to exist physically independent of another being is more deserve of legal protections than say an adult fruit fly, then I'd like to hear your reasons why you believe this. No semantics involved there.

Why does a fruit fly deserve more protection than a human being?

Your question is illogical.

At 11/11/10 05:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/11/10 02:07 PM, The-universe wrote: He's like a liberal version of cellardoor6.

I didn't know you hated me THAT much. Sheesh.

I was talking about The-General-Public being a liberal version of cellardoor6.

At 11/13/10 06:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Why does a fruit fly deserve more protection than a human being?

it does not. like a fetus, it is not helping anyone except itself.

One thing I never understood about this argument which was proposed by Sam Harris. He said stem cells were insignificant and can not be treated as people because they are simply a few cells and a fly has more cells than that. By defintion, a blue whale is much larger than a person, so by his logic, wouldn't that mean a blue whale is more important than a person? Or for that matter any large animal? More cells does not mean a more intelligent lifeform.

At 11/13/10 05:45 AM, The-General-Public wrote: If you believe that a fetus

Any ol' fetus?

I'd just like to see an answer that's actually logical

An answer can be logical without being particularly deep. Don't conflate the two. Just because a moral framework does not define why a human life is more valuable than a fly's does not make it illogical. It just makes it relatively shallow.

At 11/13/10 06:17 AM, The-universe wrote: I was talking about The-General-Public being a liberal version of cellardoor6.

Ooohh ok :)

I've been hopped up on meds the past few days.

At 11/13/10 11:10 AM, Ericho wrote: One thing I never understood about this argument which was proposed by Sam Harris. He said stem cells were insignificant and can not be treated as people because they are simply a few cells and a fly has more cells than that. By defintion, a blue whale is much larger than a person, so by his logic, wouldn't that mean a blue whale is more important than a person? Or for that matter any large animal? More cells does not mean a more intelligent lifeform.

Try reading him again.

At 11/13/10 12:15 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

An answer can be logical without being particularly deep. Don't conflate the two. Just because a moral framework does not define why a human life is more valuable than a fly's does not make it illogical. It just makes it relatively shallow.

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.

At 11/13/10 06:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Why does a fruit fly deserve more protection than a human being?

Your question is illogical.

Your inability to understand my question is your fault, not mine.

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.

"Just because a moral framework does not define why a human life is more valuable than a fly's does not make it illogical."

Am I incorrect in assuming you think that capacity for thought, feelings, and self-expression are justification as to why a life may be more valuable than another? 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.

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?

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

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

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 11/14/10 05:23 PM, The-General-Public wrote: 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.

Any moral imperative can be met with an inquiry as to the next moral imperative requisite to its validity - such that "fetuses deserve rights" is rendered not-substantial-enough without some additional bases.

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.

You should understand that I am in no way singing the praises of pro-life philosophy. I'm actually rather critical of it.

At 11/8/10 05:30 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: Pro-Choice
If abortion is illegal people will have to resort to self abortions or underground clinics. These are often unsanitary and dangerous. Not to mention the methods are usually less then humane.

Exactly. In Australia, in some states abortion is illegal (the one where I live, abortion is illegal), but however, since 6 million-odd Australians are Catholic, including myself, are opposed to it (a sizable number support abortion, probably around 10%?), abortion is henceforth illegal. Catholics play a large role in pro-life before the crazy fundie Christians (Baptist, Evangelical) stepped in. In my country, there is no self-abortion or underground clinics existing so your point is invalid here, since those wanting an abortion have to travel to another state or territory.

With Stem-Cell research on the rise, why not take the death of the child and turn into a medicine that can give someone already alive a second chance? Why make it illegal and risk three lives (mother, child, and stem-cell patient) when you could do it legally and save two lives at the cost of one?

I don't like harming anything. Even if it's just some fucking embryo. I fear the far-right Christians will try to kill me. Look at that abortion doctor in the U.S. He got killed by one of them.

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 11/15/10 05:19 AM, joe9320 wrote: I don't like harming anything. Even if it's just some fucking embryo.

Then you wouldn't get an abortion. Why should you get to decide what I do with my body?

If religion is the issue, doesn't Jesus teach you not to judge? Isn't that Gods job? So isn't the logical stance to let me make my own decisions and let God deal with me as he sees fit?

Incase anyone was wondering, God is pro-choice.

Horsea 9:14
Give them, O LORD-what will You give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

Numbers 5:11-a lot
Long story short, if a man thinks his wife is cheating, she has to drink cursed water (water with church dust in it). If she did, her baby will die and she'll be cursed.

There's more but you get my point.

At 11/13/10 06:17 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 11/13/10 06:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Why does a fruit fly deserve more protection than a human being?

it does not. like a fetus, it is not helping anyone except itself.

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?

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. Just as some fully born people can and some cannot. Is feeling something required to be human? If so, what about paralyzed people? If conscious thought...are those in comas human? You don't have an argument as much as a (falsely) assuming question.

At 11/13/10 05:49 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Your inability to understand my question is your fault, not mine.

Well, no. If someone is unclear, then it is upon them to clarify. If their question is so silly and broad as to be unanswerable, then that is also their failing. The nature of debate is that, if someone asks you to clarify, you clarify. If someone points out a flaw in your argument, you address it. You just don't simply say 'nope' and move on. Such a tactic not only proves you're a terrible debater, but that you don't have the answer to their question. Even Satanbrain addressed my follow-up better than you did.

So, in short, your question was stupid, and by your answer, you have acknowledged that much.

At 11/15/10 05:19 AM, joe9320 wrote:

If abortion is illegal people will have to resort to self abortions or underground clinics. These are often unsanitary and dangerous. Not to mention the methods are usually less then humane.

(Notice, this was not Joe. He was responding to this.)

The fact that people will continue to do something after it is illegal is not grounds to make it legal. People will rape, kill and rob no matter what. The first question (even as a libertarian) is, what wrong does this address. The answer here is: Abortion robs a human being of their god given right to live, without their consent. As such, it should be a crime. Abortion has a murder victim each time.At

11/15/10 02:41 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote:

Then you wouldn't get an abortion. Why should you get to decide what I do with my body?

For the same reason that, while I wouldn't rape someone, I get to decide you don't get to either. That was easy!

If religion is the issue, doesn't Jesus teach you not to judge? Isn't that Gods job? So isn't the logical stance to let me make my own decisions and let God deal with me as he sees fit?

Uh, no. That's not what the Bible teaches at all. Indeed, Jesus told the woman he saved from stoning that she was a sinner who had to repent. Jesus was judgemental like crazy. He called money changers vipers, Samaritans dogs, and the lot. Christians are to preach the word of God, while understanding that forgiveness is waiting. But we don't idly watch attrocities with our mouths closed.

At 11/15/10 03:13 PM, The-universe wrote: Incase anyone was wondering, God is pro-choice.

No, he's not.

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

Injuring a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage is a death penalty offense. Merely aborting the child is still a crime.

Indeed, even in your context, the Lord defines punishment as a refusal to bear children:

"11 As for Ephraim, their aglory will fly away like a bird-
No birth, no pregnancy and no conception!

12 Though they bring up their children,
Yet I will bereave them 1until not a man is left.
Yes, awoe to them indeed when I depart from them!

13 Ephraim, as I have seen,
Is planted in a pleasant meadow like aTyre;
But Ephraim will bring out his children for slaughter.

14 Give them, O Lord-what will You give?
Give them a amiscarrying womb and dry breasts.

15 All their evil is at aGilgal;
Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the bwickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of My house!
I will love them no more;
All their princes are crebels.

16 aEphraim is stricken, their root is dried up,
They will bear bno fruit.
Even though they bear children,
I will slay the cprecious ones of their womb."
You're done bud."

To those who are pregnant, they will miscarry, for they have done wrong, and those who are not pregnant, they shall never become so again. Nothing pro-choice there.

You're done.

At 11/15/10 12:20 PM, The-General-Public wrote: That's great. I don't care. Do you actually have any opinion at all on the actual topic?

Yeah, the more explicit ties were made in the rest of the post you're quoting, the stuff you cut out.

Listen, if I'm making the case that filling balloons with helium will make them float, and someone objects on the grounds that ducks have webbed feet, my dismissal of the objection is not an evasion of the issue.

Your question is asking me to produce something that is not requisite for logical consistency in dealing with all living things. The infinite regression characteristic of moral inquiry is a fundamental part as to why. If pro-life philosophy was inherently illogical, you wouldn't have to spend all this time teasing out the fallacy beneath it. So... out with it already?

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.

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

At 11/15/10 05:48 PM, WolvenBear wrote: To those who are pregnant, they will miscarry, for they have done wrong, and those who are not pregnant, they shall never become so again. Nothing pro-choice there.

You're done.

Abortion is defined as the termination of the child prior to pregnancy due to someone else causing it (e.g. not natural causes).

God caused the death of a fetus, ergo it's abortion.

But using your logic, those who claim that abortion is wrong because of religious convictions is being hypocritical because god has done the exact crime they condemn! It's the same hypocrisy as preaching the 10 commandments but if you look in the next chapter (assuming you're reading the ones in exodus), anyone who curses their parents should be killed. Also makes a fun filled and 'morally superior' statement about treatment to slaves...wait, wut?

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 06:40 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Your rights begin where society, using reason, compassion, and logic has come to a consensus on when one's rights begin.

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.

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.

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.

That's moronic. Thanks. Moving on.

As I'll never be a fetus physically attached to someone, I'm happy to decline crusading for fetal rights.

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

Prove it

Scientific fact. Sorry, imbecile.

I am Pro Choice. I think abortion is wrong after the has a HEARTBEAT other wise it is not alive, plain and simple. Now after it has a heartbeat I think it's wrong and I would not do it personally, but because we live in America. I think someone should have the choice on how they run their life and body.

At 11/15/10 06:40 PM, The-universe wrote: But using your logic, those who claim that abortion is wrong because of religious convictions is being hypocritical because god has done the exact crime they condemn! It's the same hypocrisy as preaching the 10 commandments but if you look in the next chapter (assuming you're reading the ones in exodus), anyone who curses their parents should be killed. Also makes a fun filled and 'morally superior' statement about treatment to slaves...wait, wut?

Oh my. Someone who has no clue what the Bible says arguing anything. Always fun.

Destroying a culture for their crimes against man is hardly "Yay abortion". This is the equivalent of using the death penalty to say murder is ok. Your argument is self defeating.

And considering the slave's right's movement is Judeo-Christian, you have nothing.

Thanks for playing!

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 06:49 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.

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 11:10 PM, The-General-Public wrote: The fact that I don't care has been explained, I'm just asking a question. Why are you afraid of answering it?

1. You're not just asking a question.

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

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

At 11/15/10 07:09 PM, The-General-Public wrote: 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?

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

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.

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

Yet it's still irrelevant. Next?

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

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

Damn, using your logic against you sucks huh?

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.

That is...wow. Did you get born? I think you did...
"Religious nonsense" is forced onto people all the time. You shall not kill, or rape, or rob. Etc. The HORRORS!

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.

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

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 society gets to vote on our rights (the Constitution says they can;t, but moving on), 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!