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?

The same could be asked of you. Multiple questions have been asked of you. You haven't answered one, and instead have insulted multiple people who are clearly more intelligent than you.

Why are you afraid of those questions?

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 11/16/10 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 04:46 AM, The-General-Public wrote: I want to have the right to life, so I'll personally fight to defend it.

So you DON'T have a right to life. You just want one. That's a ridiculous answer.

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.

Shrug. I think your arguments are pretty damn stupid too.

Regardless, my point is irrefutable. We either have God given rights (I believe we do) or we have no rights at all. "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. It's a privledge or grant.

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

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

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

Then you're a moron. And by this simple admission, you have no rights. I can kill you tomorrow by your logic.

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.

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. After all, every great Athiest thinker in history has poo-pooed the idea of morality. Any athiest who wishes to impose a moral code is a fool.

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

You gavce yet to argue anything to the contrary. You are one of the most pathetic debaters ever. "Nope" is not a valid counter argument.

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?

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

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

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

At 11/15/10 06:54 PM, WolvenBear wrote: 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.

You're obviously not getting it.

1. Abortion is generally defined as the termination and/or removal of a fetus by an external party.
2. As explained in Numbers, if a woman commits adultery her fetus is to be terminated.

The cause for the termination is irrelevant. It's still classed as an abortion regardless of whether or not the woman has cheated on her man or even is a murdering psychopath named Chucky.

The only thing you can argue is God supports abortion to a specific degree. But if the religious say that all abortions are murders and/or wrong, then god is (by their own logic) a murderer and/or has done wrong.

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

Then they're not reading their own scripture. The Bible is actually quite an amusing book, if they followed all the rules, then they're psychotic bigots, but if they didn't, then they're cherry picking and not actually following gods law.

Catch-22 FTW!

Thanks for playing!

Mhm, and when you actually read the passage that clearly shows an abortion, then the game will begin. Until then, this is just me teaching you what the bible says.

At 11/16/10 08:25 AM, WolvenBear wrote: We either have God given rights (I believe we do) or we have no rights at all. "Rights" that can be taken away are not rights.

Wait... so then doesn't that make them God given niceties? Are are you saying God given rights can't be taken away?

Could you list some of these God given rights?

At 11/16/10 04:50 AM, The-General-Public wrote: 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.

Then you've a very selective memory.

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.

I've been pretty clear as to why I'm not answering the question, so don't act like it's a mystery if not fear, and then tell me you're not ignoring what I say.

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.

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.

It's not 'just because you don't care.'

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.

No. Actually, you're asking for a specific kind of clarification of my position by which you hope to come across the abounding logical flaws within it. There's not need to overstate my alleged fear (mortal logical flaw) or understate your angle (only asking for clarification). You have a point and you're trying to make it.

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 01:54 PM, The-General-Public wrote: I don't even remember what condition x is

Isn't it great that we have it all in writing.

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.

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 11/15/10 05:48 PM, WolvenBear wrote: For the same reason that, while I wouldn't rape someone, I get to decide you don't get to either.

Ummm... rape is something you do to somebody elses body.

Jesus was judgemental like crazy.

Yeah... cause he was Jesus... he was perfect. You're not Jesus. You're not perfect.

Christians are to preach the word of God

Yeah... they're to preach it. Not force their interpritation of Gods word upon the masses.

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 09:30 PM, The-General-Public wrote: You've proven that you've taken a high school course on logic, congratulations.

Allow me to demonstrate again...

The unexamined life isn't worth living.

False dilemma.

Now try to actually contribute something useful to this conversation.

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

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 11/17/10 12:29 AM, The-General-Public wrote: i.e. stop posting off-topic rants about logic and actually address the OP

You seem to think I've been avoiding 'the point' when I've been making 'the point' rather continually. I've been rather on topic, but if you make the argument that not answering why-a-human-life-is-more-valuable-than-a -fruitfly's as living an unexamined life I'm going to call bullshit.

The awesome irony in all this is that my lie of omission is not that I'm withholding the type of answer you're after (I've given my answer), but that I haven't told you I'm pro-choice... which... is only a lie of omission because you were eager to pounce a pro-lifer for... get this... disagreeing with an anti-pro-life argument that amounted to a semantic game, on the grounds that it was a semantic game (i.e. not that someone like wolvenbear has his head on straight).

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.

Wolvenbear, your posts are not helping anyone. Stop it.

Reading the shit that's taken a good 3 pages, I want to look at the whole question that started it all...

At 11/10/10 08:55 PM, The-General-Public wrote: So why does a human fetus deserve more care than another living creature?

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. It is contrary to the progression of our own species to withhold respect for one's own species, speaking from a Darwinian point of view, so it makes no sense as a species to place equal respect for a non-human.

There, I said what you wanted us to say, now move on with your freakin' argument. Geez, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

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. It is contrary to the progression of our own species to withhold respect for one's own species, speaking from a Darwinian point of view, so it makes no sense as a species to place equal respect for a non-human.

I'm going to hijack this for a moment, since we're in some agreement, to make the point: with the possible exception of 'progressing our own species,' none of that answer regards a normative 'why.' It discusses more a matter of motivation, rather than justification. And if 'progression of our own species' is a moral imperative, it is to some extent circular, or otherwise begs the question again, "why?"

And on a related note. I consider morality principally motivated by a dialogue between empathy and fear. And I think that shows in the abortion controversy, in emotional appeals such as the one mentioned by the OP.

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 11/17/10 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 01:40 AM, The-General-Public wrote: why does a human fetus deserve more care than another living creature?

There is no answer to that question that I am withholding from you. My answer is that the question is frivolous, and that not having an answer does not mean the position is ill conceived - as, again, moral justification is arbitrarily finite, and moral justification is not the extent of scrutiny.

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.

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 01:34 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

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. It is contrary to the progression of our own species to withhold respect for one's own species, speaking from a Darwinian point of view, so it makes no sense as a species to place equal respect for a non-human.

I'm going to hijack this for a moment, since we're in some agreement, to make the point: with the possible exception of 'progressing our own species,' none of that answer regards a normative 'why.' It discusses more a matter of motivation, rather than justification. And if 'progression of our own species' is a moral imperative, it is to some extent circular, or otherwise begs the question again, "why?"

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, in terms of priority. Perhaps it's for religious reasons, for some. For others, maybe the familiarity a human being provides is much greater than a non-human does, so the person sympathizes with him/her. Whatever the reason, I can't say, but it's easy to show that people care for humans simply by virtue of the fact that they are human.

That's not the normative statement that I was looking for.

It's an answer so we can change the flow of the discussion. I guess it isn't the normal answer, but whatever.

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.

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. Thus there is no conflict with the pro-choice person committing an abortion and being a vegetarian/pet-lover/PETA worker, at the same time. That's why there's so much focus on whether the fetus is a human or not, when it comes to these debates.

Indeed, if a pro-lifer convinced the pro-choice person that the fetus was a human life then suddenly what you've posted there becomes a very real problem, doesn't it? At best, it'll create a great deal of cognitive dissonance with the pro-choice person...

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 02:32 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?

I was saying that the evidence for his statements was unconvincing, nothing else.

When I give you answers like that you tell me the unexamined life isn't worth living and the like. You're unconvinced for a reason, aren't you? Cause I thought you were pretty clear about that reason way back at 1:44AM on the 17th.

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 11/16/10 08:25 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 11/16/10 04:46 AM, The-General-Public wrote: 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. After all, every great Athiest thinker in history has poo-pooed the idea of morality. Any athiest who wishes to impose a moral code is a fool.

You really don't understand how things work.

It is incredibly easy to explain morality from a logical point of view. Each person is entitled to their own body. Given an acceptable mental state (as in able to think rationally) the persons is able to choose what they wish to do involving themselves. A human does not have the right to do anything to another human without their permission. Therefore, things such as murder and rape are a breech of the basic rights of a sentient species.

If we wish to be fully technical and objective, a human is not truly alive until an average of six months. Before this, they are but a mostly blank slate. For all intents and purposes, however, we can assume them as people because they are already 'alive.' It would also be rather useless to terminate the process at this point.

A key example of why one does not need to justify morality or a social norm can be to look at creatures in nature. Most have no higher thought, no ability to question why things are the way they are. Yet some birds have been known to care for each other, a young jay feeding an older bird with a broken-off lower beak, for example. Crows have been known to copy human behavior, with one key instance being the burial of their dead. This is interesting in that it leaves the question, "Do they know why they bury the bodies, or do they simply emulate the behavior that they experience?" This question can also be applied to humans. Many cultures have many funeral rituals. Some bury their dead, some burn the corpses, and some go so far as to eat the corpse. This leads you to ask just why they do these things. Do they bury their dead over a fear of loss? Do they burn the corpse to prevent the spread of disease? Do they eat it for there is a scarcity of food?

One can claim that most humans simply emulate behaviors they witness, and they would not be too far from the truth. While one person may be born into a devout Catholic family and taught a specific view on the sanctity of life, a child in Africa may be brought up to believe an entirely different concept. Even among religions of the same root their exists a very large difference in their beliefs.

The most important question one can ask, however, is why religion A is right and religion B is wrong. Members of both groups are taught from birth that their view is the right view, and that it is the absolute truth. They wage wars, whether violent or not, against the opposing religion. Neither concedes defeat, and both claim that their variant is better. Both religions piggyback on those that came before them, accepting some doctrines while rejecting others. The hatred of the other religion is instilled in the minds of the children on both sides, and the cycle repeats itself for generations until either side conquers the other, or group C takes advantage of the tension and marches their army in.

I could go off on a tirade on why I believe religion to just be a crutch for humanity in it's infancy, I will not. That would just be me spouting my opinion without any basis in fact.

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.

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 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?

Different questions warrant different approaches.

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