Republicans thank the Christian voters

[will]

Originally posted by Mattress
Ask any person that was concieved during a rape if they wish they had been aborted. Ask their mother if she regrets not aborting.

I'd rather have been aborted than be the son of a rapist.

[Mattress]

So if your father is convicted of rape in the future, you'll commit suicide?

[PrintScrn]

Originally posted by MegaRock
Coming up soon: the Child Custody Protection Act, which would make it illegal for anyone but a parent or guardian to take an underage girl across state lines for an abortion, thus making parental notification and consent laws impossible to get around;

not really.

I drive girl to state line. She get's out and walks over state line. I pick her up on the other side and away we go.

Loopholes are fun.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by zootm
I figured since you had not replied to any of mine except to point out minor corrections, that I'd extend you the same courtesy.

Relativist Fallacy is not relevant here because there is nothing being true.

WTF! The relativist fallacy is to claim that there is no truth!

If you claim that "a phoetus is a person", as a fact, you are wrong - there is no difference in relativistic truth here. You are simply stating your opinion as fact. Since "person" does not have a specific, final formal definition exact enough to give a definition of this type.

My argument is that both sides of this argument are (demonstrably) opinions, and that treating one or the other as fact is a fallacy. This directly revokes your argument that I have no argument.

Actually, what I was saying is that you haven't presented an arguement yet, which after this next bit of bantering, still holds true.

As for my opinion on the abortion issue, I've not attempted to defend it here, and I will continue not to. It serves no purpose.

For fun, let's attempt to retort to some of your arguments

as is always the easier

Your argument here is based upon an implicit definition of a "person"* (or a "human", or whatever you want to say - one whom it is wrong to kill) as:

code:
hasHumanDNA(X) ^ isIndividual(X) --> isAPerson(X)

This is your opinion of what makes a "person". That's fine with me, but it's not an opinion I share. If this is not your opinion, this is a Straw Man. If you consider it a tautological truth, you are wrong - this is what is referred to as a fallacy of definition.

I never state that my definition is fact, but I do understand why you could think that, as it is a strong definition, and you have nothing to say about it, except that it is an opinion.
What I am asking is for your opinion: How then do you define a person, and how does it render my definition irrational? And then, when faced with an example of what that definition entails, and how it lowers the value of life, do you contridict yourself?

Your quote from the Declaration of Independance is a diversionary tactic based on an appeal to emotion.

Actually it was just a list of ideals, which I think that most people can agree on; it was an attempt to find common ground. I could have very well said "life, libety, and ownership of Property" quoteing Locke, or rearranged the three (thus removing most of the emotional appeal)and ment the very same thing.

Good argument. On a side-note, I would have also if I were in the US.

well, it was intended for megarock, not you. Where are you from?

You're never going to be able to convince someone of this in a classroom environment - it's an opinion rather than a fact. Simply telling people the facts enables them to make an educated opinion. Obviously, if people are well-educated about sex, they will know that abstinence is the only risk-free course of action.

You basically agreed with me, because the facts would include abstinence education.

Firstly, people in glass houses should not throw stones. Secondly, your constant insulting of other members of the forum is undermining your argument, something you could dearly do without.

Really?

__________
I'm going to use this term because it's essentially a matter of nomenclature.

what does this last part mean?

[will]

Originally posted by Mattress
So if your father is convicted of rape in the future, you'll commit suicide?

That'd be hard, hes dead.

[The Titan]

*Sighs*

I give up. As H G Wells put it:

"Fanatics are madmen who find a masochistic pleasure in strangling their own doubts, there is no dealing with them"

@ the pro-abortionists

But we shouldn't give up in voicing our opinions to the masses, let our cause be known, to quote Wells again:

"We may have to admit a regretfully a loss of buoyancy and of the ability for mental co-operations ... but they furnish no justification for abandoning a loyal participation in the struggle. Our cause may still be winning."

Keep the hope alive: some still live in the primative thought of centuries ago unaltered by the advances of logic and knowledge, but our number bolster as theirs deplete, in the distant future, our time will come.

...look forward, it is one ability we have which they never will aquire.

[gaekwad2]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
WTF! The relativist fallacy is to claim that there is no truth!

It certainly isn't:

On the one hand, those discussions of the relativist fallacy which make the fallacy out to be identical to relativism (e.g., linguistic relativism or cultural relativism) are themselves committing a commonly-identified fallacy of informal logic, namely, begging the question against an earnest, intelligent, logically-competent relativist. It is itself a fallacy to describe a controversial view as a "fallacy"--not, at least, without arguing that it is a fallacy. In any event, it will not do to argue as follows:

1. To advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to commit the relativist fallacy.
2. If one commits a fallacy, one says something false or not worth serious consideration.
3. Therefore, to advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to say something false or not worth serious consideration.

Virtually no philosopher worth his salt would take such an argument seriously; it is a fine example of circular reasoning.

[zootm]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
WTF! The relativist fallacy is to claim that there is no truth!

Yes. But it is also a fallacy to claim that there is an absolute moral truth - that is an issue of opinion.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Actually, what I was saying is that you haven't presented an arguement yet, which after this next bit of bantering, still holds true.

Yes. It was deliberate. An attempt at an explanation follows.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
I never state that my definition is fact, but I do understand why you could think that, as it is a strong definition, and you have nothing to say about it, except that it is an opinion.

It always seems that these arguments are based upon acceptance of definition. If someone does not share your definition of a "person", your argument is essentially in vain. If you look through this thread, many of the arguments are the same thing reworded and reworked, but without any extra persuasiveness as an argument, since those you oppose still do not share your opinion.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
What I am asking is for your opinion: How then do you define a person, and how does it render my definition irrational? And then, when faced with an example of what that definition entails, and how it lowers the value of life, do you contridict yourself?

I don't have a firm definition in my head - I'm one of those people who are fairly "central" in most debates, open to arguments from both sides. I do not consider a phoetus to be a person for various reasons... I like to try and draw the line at "cognition", but that is a very hard line to draw, so I draw it at birth. It's worth noting that I would almost definately not allow a child I had created to be aborted - my pro-choice decision is one based upon the consequences of making abortion illegal, and my distrust of my own beliefs. There's few things I have a "concrete" opinion on.

Contrary to what you might think, most of my posts in this have been to further my knowledge of others' beliefs. I'm not trying to persuade, which is why I've not stated my opinion. I'm trying to understand, and I'm trying to give people a more thorough understanding of their beliefs (thus the big loads of questions in some posts). A belief you're not willing to question is worthless, in my opinion.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Actually it was just a list of ideals, which I think that most people can agree on; it was an attempt to find common ground. I could have very well said "life, libety, and ownership of Property" quoteing Locke, or rearranged the three (thus removing most of the emotional appeal)and ment the very same thing.

Fair dues.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
well, it was intended for megarock, not you. Where are you from?

Scotland, in the UK.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
You basically agreed with me, because the facts would include abstinence education.

Correct. My problem is with it being preached to the detriment of unbiased education.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Really?

"Undermine" is not the same as "invalidate". As true as your arguments are, as the link you so graciously provided actually mentions, your insults make people hastily generalise and hence disregard your points - weakening (undermining) your argument's poignancy. Don't assume I'm constantly attacking you.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
what does this last part mean?

It was supposed to be preceded by a '*', as a footnote to the word "person". Apologies for my typing, I'm trying to write a presentation and a dissertation at the same time as all of this, and I've not really got the time to proof-read.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by Mattress
So, pro-abortion or pro-choice people, what are your reasons for abortion? how do you justify it to yourselves? Why do you believe that is isn't the killing of an innocent human life?

My thought is this: it's not my place to decide nor is it the place of the Government. It is the place of each individual if abortion is ok or not.

If you don't believe in God then you have nothing to worry about. If you do you'll pay in the end irregardless of what the government tells you if you can or cannot.

My original issue was the fact that TAXPAYER MONEY is being used to try to stop abortions and is being handed to churches in direct violation of the seperation of church and state yet at the same time no church contributes back into the taxpayer funds even if they collect millions a year.

The other argument is that abortion is murder. Theoretically it's not - it's a medical practice and has been far longer than it's even been legal. Is it wrong? Hell yes ... morally and ethically it's wrong ... but like I said - it's neither for me or the Government to decide and furthermore it's definately not something the Government should be throwing my tax money into for either side just because they voted for Bush and the GOP and now they have to pay them back. They paid them back all right at the tune of over a quarter billion dollars of our money.

Shit, guess I'd have voted for Bush too if I knew this kind of money was in it for me afterwards.

[will]

Silly MegaRock, don't you realise that there is no difference between the statements:
"I don't agree with x, but its none of my business if people do it."
and:
"X shouldn't happen ever, and nobody should be allowed to do it."

[edit: oh wait, the first one is called "freedom" and the other "fascist". Silly me.]

[Raz]

You're all shouting at each other that the number 3 is better than the number 8 and vice versa. There is no argument to persuade either side to agree on when a human is a human because it is such a fundamental thing.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by will
Silly MegaRock, don't you realise that there is no difference between the statements:
"I don't agree with x, but its none of my business if people do it."
and:
"X shouldn't happen ever, and nobody should be allowed to do it."

[edit: oh wait, the first one is called "freedom" and the other "fascist". Silly me.]

Actually if you ask most people there is a big difference.

Case 1: In my opinion I know it's wrong. You probably do too. Most people with common sense also do. But it's not my place, your place or anyone elses place to interfere in other peoples lifes based on what I think is right or wrong.

Case 2: In my opinion I think it's wrong so I am going to impose my opinion on other peoples lifes if they like it or not.

With the first example it is up to each person to make their own decisions. Those decisions will be with them for the rest of their life and beyond.

With the other example everyone has to do things under the control of someone else. Someone else makes the decision of what is right and wrong. Soneone else tells you what you can and cannot do. Pretty much at that point why even think for yourself because someone else tells you everything you can and cannot do.

Indeed the first is freedom and the other is facist. I'll agree with you there. If I wanted others to tell me how to live my life I'd move to China.

[Mattress]

I guess then it should be legal for parents to kill their born children too. I mean they should have that option, not that it's moral or right but, hey we don't want to be fascists do we?

[squakMix]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
But because it has human DNA, it is distinctly human, and because it has a unique DNA pattern, it is uniquely individual, and thus has it's own right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We both know that humans are unique, and are treated so by every facet ever. Yeah, that's completely
illogical.
You must have a real reason your pro-choice? Don't you?

1: having human dna doesnt mean shit to me (it might actually "deep down", but not logically)

2: I'm pro-choice because I dont think that someone should have the right to control someone they dont know or have any ties to with no actual reason to control. As in: I dont think just because you think it's wrong BECAUSE of your religion, that you should assume that everyone else thinks it's wrong too; Nobody wanting it done thinks like you are, so why do you think you should be able to force them to do with their life what you THINK they should?

[shakey_snake]

Where do you live squak?
I'll come kill you, but it's no big deal, I think differently.

[electricmime]

the difference squak, is that it does affect someone else.. it affects the kid, and thats why the debate of its human or not is so important.. after all, child-abuse laws are there for a reason, so why should we have the right to take someones kids just because they beat them, and we disagree with that? i mean, you are terminating a (debateable) humans life, and why isnt that child given the freedom you are so kindly giving to the person who is killing it?

on another note, im not sure about this... but is it true that an underage girl can get an abortion without her parents permission? i thought that if i needed surgery to save my life i needed my parents permission... and if abortions arent murder, why does killing a pregnant woman count as a double murder?

squak, are you saying that because a relgion says that stealing is wrong, then the laws cant punish those who steal?

[deeder7001]

has anybody ever actually asked the baby if it wanted to be aborted? no? we can't beat our children but we can kill them before they are born. what a load of shit that is.

[electricmime]

deeder... its irrelevant if the baby wanted to be aborted, assisted suicide is illegal

[Wolfgang]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Trying to argue that something is "out of date" isn't a valid argument at all, not to mention you start talking about aids, and end with the morning after pill, which has nothing to do with killing HIV.
As a matter of fact, your post is so incoherant, I kind of wonder why you bothered at all.
Well, please do your best to ignore the topic on hand; it makes whatever else you have to say just that much more valuable and insightful...

I'm not going to go as far as saying that you are an arsehole, but that post (and several others) make you seem like one. In any case, that reply wasn't directed at you.

And my post was not incoherent. Maybe the first paragraph wasn't terrible clear. No condoms --> spread of aids.

I then went to point out that it seemed to me that mattress seemed to think people were having too much sex. Not related to the aids/condoms/Catholic Church argument.

Try being a little more polite.

[PrintScrn]

I feel ignored

[zootm]

Me too

[Mattress]

That's because you are being rational. Go away and let the rest of us yell at each other and be dickheads.

[deeder7001]

Originally posted by Mattress
That's because you are being rational. Go away and let the rest of us yell at each other and be dickheads.

exactly. it's fun for us irrational people i guess.

[zootm]

Stupid rationality

[Wolfgang]

I don't think it's fun. I get pissed off. I like to think I'm rational, but I don't know really. I bet shakey snake thinks he's rational.

[shakey_snake]

I'm the most rational human being I've ever met, or ever will meet.

[Wolfgang]

Bollocks.

[zootm]

I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand's work. Although there's good points in it, a lot of it reads like the work of madness.

It's a real mixed bag, I find.

[shakey_snake]

Well, like everything, you have to take it with a grain of salt.

[Mattress]

I love salt, I'm probably going to die of a sodium overdose.

[shakey_snake]

Is that a Dead Sea joke?

[Mattress]

I don't think so, I was stating a fact and then speculating about it's implications for the future.

[The Titan]

Originally posted by PrintScrn
I feel ignored

I consider it a compliment in many respects. It means they aren't able (by either physical or mental disabilities) to come up with a way to refute my views without sounding like a dumbass.

DISCLAIMER: This only applies to well structured viewpoints, not one irrelevant/unreasoned sentence or two. The same is true of well structured arguements with irrelevant info, if your info is unreasoned people will reply with a "You dumbass. Think a moment before you speak out your arse, or at least point it the other way".

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
I'm the most rational human being I've ever met, or ever will meet.

How funny. I'm the only being.

[xzxzzx]

Note: This post is long, probably verbose, and certainly uses far too many abstruse words. Some of the very concepts I am attempting to communicate are recondite. If you didn't already know what "abstruse" or "recondite" meant, you will probably need to read with caution to truly get what I am saying, and have a good dictionary handy.

---

It sometimes amazes me how little each side of a debate understand each other's point of view. I hope to clarify, as I understand it:

Pro-life people see an unborn child as a human life, entitled to the same privileges as a grown human, and therefore, abortion is wrong.

Pro-choice people see a distinction in an unborn child, to varying degrees - they may think that an abortion at 4 weeks is fine, but at 30 weeks, is wrong.

This is the central argument, though this is a remarkably complex issue, because it brings up the question of why it is wrong to kill another - that is, it's clearly wrong for me to go around randomly killing people, but why?

For Christians, it may simply be because it is against God's will, and that makes it immoral. That kind of thinking is fine with me, as long as it isn't enforced on me.

For Atheists, or those who don't use something as a concrete guide to their morality, this becomes significantly more complex. I will ignore the more esoteric arguments here, and focus on the simplest two: That it is best to do to others as you would have them do to you, and that killing a human ends a consciousness.

Both of these arguments inherently stem from the idea that life (or consciousness) is valuable.

For pro-choice people, this idea cannot apply very well, as an embryo cannot think, and is therefore not a life. For pro-life people, this is a life that has not yet reached consciousness. It seems it is simply a question of whether it is life or consciousness that is precious.

For pro-choice advocates, the distinction is clear: Life is not valuable, as we can kill cows, bacteria, etc. It is consciousness that is valuable.

For pro-life advocates, the distinction is also clear: Life is not valuable, but human life is. A human is a human, and since a human can, given the natural course of events, think, do the things that any other human can do, the life is valuable.



For myself, I am a pro-choice advocate. I cannot view an embryo as a separate life from a mother's body until it can sustain itself. Nearly every egg that the mother carries has, in essence, the same potential as an embryo - to become a conscious being, it simply needs a sperm. An embryo has no more potential, as it requires huge amounts of supporting molecules from the mother - in essence, the mother's body is building the a body within itself. The child's DNA is the blueprint, but the mother provides the construction crew and all the materials - until that crew can be removed without the organism falling apart, it has only the potential for life, and that does not make it a human any more than the average sperm/egg cell.

---

That having been said, there is an argument that I find ... pestiferously erroneous, which is the idea that an embryo is valuable due to it's unique genetic makeup.

This is so very fallacious that it is hard to begin. A cancer cell has a unique, human, DNA. Cancer cells, obviously, are not valuable, and are certainly not considered a life. So, then, we consider the other side of the argument - that the life must be preserved, because it's uniqueness of DNA makeup is so very valuable. If this, however, were the case, then we must, morally, create as many children as possible, and the "sin" of abortion is the same as simply not having a child. My third and final argument is that identical twins are certainly not any less valuable as humans than fraternal twins, so how can DNA be viewed as being distinctive?

[shakey_snake]

First off, I think you sell Christianity short on its bid, as a Christian can ask, "why did God make it immoral?" Being Christian does not nessicerily make you limited.

as for consciencesness, does that mean I can kill you while you sleep?

Cancer DNA maybe different from other body cells, but its not unique.
Identical Twins?
They are separate entities.

[CaboWaboAddict]

xzxzzx, there is another side that you left out...

To kill a person deprives them of their future life. It doesn't matter if they haven't developed a consciousness yet.

[The Titan]

I was wondering, could one of you direct me to passages in the bible which state that abortion is wrong? Before you think I'm calling you a liar or something, I am in fact genuinely interested having never got more than a tenth of it read myself, and happen to be doing a paper on fundamentalism.

[Raz]

Cabo, but if it is still potential, then you have also deprived millions of sperm their future conciousness every time you masturbate. Who are you to draw the line?

[deeder7001]

those milions of sperm don't have a future if they aren't in the right place. when put in the right place at the right time, they have a chance.