Posted by silentpadna on 4/13/2011 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Who is the "Christian Taliban" and how does that have a bearing on the merit of the arguments that I've proposed regarding what a fetus is?  Is your post an attempt to lump all pro-life people into whatever this unknown group you mention?  How about addressing the merits of the several lines of actual discussion going on in this thread...

And you should cite your "work".  A simple google search found a link to your copy/paste.  Are you the actual author of that blog? 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2011 1:16:00 PM (view original):
Wow.  Just wow.   You're setting records for dense stupidity.    If, by some minor miracle, you find someone who'll let you pay for sex and they get pregnant, please contact me.  I'll pay them to have an abortion.   And throw in a free vasectomy for you.

Posted by silentpadna on 4/13/2011 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/12/2011 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 4/12/2011 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/12/2011 1:58:00 PM (view original):
If you're defining a fetus as a human being, entitled to all the rights of a human being, then you're faced with an impossible moral dilemma: either you have to deny the fetus its rights, or you have to deny the mother her rights.

I can understand the impulse to protect the one in that equation that can't speak for itself, but I can't share it. I know the mother is a human being; I'm not as sure about the fetus. So I have to side with protecting her actual rights, rather than the theoretical rights of the fetus.

What is it that makes you know the mother is a human being?  And what standard do you apply to her that you cannot apply to the fetus?

I don't define the fetus as a human being.  Science does.  Draw blood or any living tissue from a fetus at any single point in the process and what kind of DNA is it?  Is it living?  Can you differentiate that kind of DNA from the mother's kind of DNA?

If you're defining humanity as beginning at the point of conception - which you were - then science does not at all "define" a zygote or embryo as a human being, any more than a sperm or egg are "defined" as human beings.

But I'm talking about the moral argument. A fetal nervous system isn't developed enough to feel pain until the late second or even third trimester, so you can't make a basic Utilitarian argument against abortion until that point in its development. As for Kant, well, he might be against completely voluntary abortions but in favor of those in the extreme cases (rape, incest, health of the mother endangered), but the Categorical Imperative can be a pretty subjective tool.

Basically put, I have yet to see a moral argument against abortion that's as strong as the moral argument against restricting arbortion.

You never actually answered the questions, but I'll respond to your points...

Regarding definition of humanity.  Perhaps saying "science defines" is a poor choice of words.  Let me restate the point using facts that are scientific.  It is a scientific fact that a zygote or embryo or fetus is a living thing, based on the fact that those organisms meet all of the requirements for life.  Their DNA is entirely human and nothing else.  A zygote/embryo/fetus/baby/teenager is exactly what a human being is at each state if its development.  When a sperm cell and egg cell combine to form the zygote, there is no other biological event that changes it from one kind of being into another.  Aside for implanting itself into the uterine wall, the only thing the zygote/embryo/fetus does, assuming its healthy enough to take in nutrients, expel waste, etc. is grow. 

Regarding the "moral" argument.  Why does pain threshold have anything to do with determining whether or not you are human?  Abortion rights aren't based on that anyway since it is perfectly legal to kill the child right up until birth - but only if you are a doctor hired by the mother.  In many states, it is murder to kill a fetus.  So in our society, it is already accepted by courts that the fetus is a human being - with absolutely no reference to whether or not certain systems are fully developed.  Not to mention that in some humans, some systems don't develop fully anyway.  There are cases of people who do not have the ability feel pain.  Are we justified in killing them?  Is it okay to kill any other human being because their systems aren't fully developed?  When you talk about subjectivity, it seems to me that those who argue against humanity based on any other actual event are the ones being subjective. I'm not being arbitrary, I'm selecting the last biological event to occur relative to the type of living being it is. 

Again, what is it that makes you know the mother is a human being?  And what standard do you apply to her that you cannot apply to the fetus?

Posted by tedco on 4/13/2011 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2011 1:16:00 PM (view original):
Wow.  Just wow.   You're setting records for dense stupidity.    If, by some minor miracle, you find someone who'll let you pay for sex and they get pregnant, please contact me.  I'll pay them to have an abortion.   And throw in a free vasectomy for you.

Wow,... what, exactly?

Says a lot about you that instead of actually explaining your response to my comment you fall right into your default childish insult position.

I think we're done here. Logic and reason have no place in a conversation with people like you.

I get it now.  You're just making statements that are only indirectly related to what you believe to get a response.  I've done that a few times myself.  I know how the game works.

But I'll play along.   You can't say "Of course PP would transfer funds from an overfunded account to an underfunded account" and then say "But federal funds do not fund abortions" in the same sentence.  Well, you can but it's pretty stupid to do so.   Yet, for some reason, you did. 

I'm not going to quote the entire exchange because it gets hard to read, but anton, it was you who brought up the "moral" argument.  I was simply addressing the points you made.  You said you know the mother is human and were not sure about the fetus.  I asked you to define the difference, which you didn't.  You then appealed to a different stage of development - arbitrarily picked, and a vague reference to Kant (who I am familiar with) along with claiming that there is no utilitarian argument based on your arbitrary claim.  The implication in your argument is that this arbitrary claim or assertion is fact, but you did not support it.

I'm not trying to convince you to switch a view to pro-life (of course I'd love to do that) - but I am trying to point out the merits of the position.  I can 100% see the merits of the pro-choice position, given a single premise.  If the fetus is not a human being, no justification for abortion would be necessary and we would have no right to restrict it.  It's the premise that I and other pro-life people have a problem with.  Without it being true, the entire justification falls apart.  You've chosen to take the converation into a different direction, avoid the question and assert that I don't understand the philosophy of morals.

I'll go down that road with you another time.  You are obviously free to avoid answering the questions I've posed to illustrate the pro-life position, but I've made it pretty clear.  Whether you agree with them or not is not my aim.  My aim is to let some of the folks here understand that the position we take is a reasonable one.  It's not about forcing the poor to become poorer or desiring women to suffer or any other of that nonsense.  It's about coming to a conclusion based on what we actually know about life and trying to protect individuals who cannot protect themselves.  I do not have an opinion about when life begins.  It's clear that upon conception, an organism is formed.  It is living and has the DNA structure of a human.  From that point on, all it does is grow.   It cannot change into any other type of being despite the level of development, where is lives, or what it is capable of.  None of those are opinions.  None or those are arbitrary.  I am pro-life because it's not possible to reconcile the type of being a fetus is with the right to kill it.  Come to a different conclusion?  Fine.  Call the pro-life position illogical and I think it's a stretch.  There are many many non-hysterical intelligent people (a whole lot smarter than me) who hold the same view.

Posted by rcrusso on 4/13/2011 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 4/13/2011 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Who is the "Christian Taliban" and how does that have a bearing on the merit of the arguments that I've proposed regarding what a fetus is?  Is your post an attempt to lump all pro-life people into whatever this unknown group you mention?  How about addressing the merits of the several lines of actual discussion going on in this thread...

And you should cite your "work".  A simple google search found a link to your copy/paste.  Are you the actual author of that blog? 

It was not my intention to claim the work as my own. I was merely sharing an article on the subject that I felt had merit. I had thought I had copied the name of the source but apparently not. I really will try to not make that mistake again but then what new way will you find to discredit me? And do I really care? Not really!

The narrow-minded left is quick to dismiss "faith" and call anyone who has it "narrow-minded".
 

Posted by silentpadna on 4/13/2011 2:27:00 PM (view original):

I'm not going to quote the entire exchange because it gets hard to read, but anton, it was you who brought up the "moral" argument.  I was simply addressing the points you made.  You said you know the mother is human and were not sure about the fetus.  I asked you to define the difference, which you didn't.  You then appealed to a different stage of development - arbitrarily picked, and a vague reference to Kant (who I am familiar with) along with claiming that there is no utilitarian argument based on your arbitrary claim.  The implication in your argument is that this arbitrary claim or assertion is fact, but you did not support it.

I'm not trying to convince you to switch a view to pro-life (of course I'd love to do that) - but I am trying to point out the merits of the position.  I can 100% see the merits of the pro-choice position, given a single premise.  If the fetus is not a human being, no justification for abortion would be necessary and we would have no right to restrict it.  It's the premise that I and other pro-life people have a problem with.  Without it being true, the entire justification falls apart.  You've chosen to take the converation into a different direction, avoid the question and assert that I don't understand the philosophy of morals.

I'll go down that road with you another time.  You are obviously free to avoid answering the questions I've posed to illustrate the pro-life position, but I've made it pretty clear.  Whether you agree with them or not is not my aim.  My aim is to let some of the folks here understand that the position we take is a reasonable one.  It's not about forcing the poor to become poorer or desiring women to suffer or any other of that nonsense.  It's about coming to a conclusion based on what we actually know about life and trying to protect individuals who cannot protect themselves.  I do not have an opinion about when life begins.  It's clear that upon conception, an organism is formed.  It is living and has the DNA structure of a human.  From that point on, all it does is grow.   It cannot change into any other type of being despite the level of development, where is lives, or what it is capable of.  None of those are opinions.  None or those are arbitrary.  I am pro-life because it's not possible to reconcile the type of being a fetus is with the right to kill it.  Come to a different conclusion?  Fine.  Call the pro-life position illogical and I think it's a stretch.  There are many many non-hysterical intelligent people (a whole lot smarter than me) who hold the same view.

Posted by silentpadna on 4/14/2011 8:33:00 AM (view original):
Interestingly enough, nowehere in the discussion of the merits of position has "faith" been involved...

Posted by antonsirius on 4/14/2011 8:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 4/13/2011 2:27:00 PM (view original):

I'm not going to quote the entire exchange because it gets hard to read, but anton, it was you who brought up the "moral" argument.  I was simply addressing the points you made.  You said you know the mother is human and were not sure about the fetus.  I asked you to define the difference, which you didn't.  You then appealed to a different stage of development - arbitrarily picked, and a vague reference to Kant (who I am familiar with) along with claiming that there is no utilitarian argument based on your arbitrary claim.  The implication in your argument is that this arbitrary claim or assertion is fact, but you did not support it.

I'm not trying to convince you to switch a view to pro-life (of course I'd love to do that) - but I am trying to point out the merits of the position.  I can 100% see the merits of the pro-choice position, given a single premise.  If the fetus is not a human being, no justification for abortion would be necessary and we would have no right to restrict it.  It's the premise that I and other pro-life people have a problem with.  Without it being true, the entire justification falls apart.  You've chosen to take the converation into a different direction, avoid the question and assert that I don't understand the philosophy of morals.

I'll go down that road with you another time.  You are obviously free to avoid answering the questions I've posed to illustrate the pro-life position, but I've made it pretty clear.  Whether you agree with them or not is not my aim.  My aim is to let some of the folks here understand that the position we take is a reasonable one.  It's not about forcing the poor to become poorer or desiring women to suffer or any other of that nonsense.  It's about coming to a conclusion based on what we actually know about life and trying to protect individuals who cannot protect themselves.  I do not have an opinion about when life begins.  It's clear that upon conception, an organism is formed.  It is living and has the DNA structure of a human.  From that point on, all it does is grow.   It cannot change into any other type of being despite the level of development, where is lives, or what it is capable of.  None of those are opinions.  None or those are arbitrary.  I am pro-life because it's not possible to reconcile the type of being a fetus is with the right to kill it.  Come to a different conclusion?  Fine.  Call the pro-life position illogical and I think it's a stretch.  There are many many non-hysterical intelligent people (a whole lot smarter than me) who hold the same view.

I'm attempting to answer the question of whether an abortion is moral.

And no, nothing you've said on that subject particularly indicates that you understand the philosophy of morality. Sorry.

You believe humanity begins at conception. I'm not convinced. Give me a moral reason to treat a zygote, or even a 20-week-old fetus, as a human being. So far you have yet to even try.