Abortion

[numinus]

And I never suggested that we are persons only because we are the offspring of two human beings. I stated that the offspring of two human beings is never anything but a human being. Quite a different statement.

And when you equate a human being with personhood, as you did countless times, the circular argument becomes quite evident. Do not think that the intent of your argument isn't clear.

That is not to say that a human being can not come to being by any other route as in cloning or the asexual reproduction that results in identical twins.

No.

You have determined that the limit at which a human being starts to exist is CONCEPTION and yet you claim personhood for an organism without the benefit of CONCEPTION.

Or do I need to point you to a dictionary meaning of the word, hmmm?

 

[vyo476]

You have determined that the limit at which a human being starts to exist is CONCEPTION and yet you claim personhood for an organism without the benefit of CONCEPTION.

I have to hand it to you, that is an excellent point.

 

[palerider]

Actually, we are discussing the epistemological standard of human existence as it pertains to personhood - since it involves a fundamental imperative as an operation of natural law.

Do you have any idea what you are trying to say? Did you get a new dictionary and feel the need to use all the big words in a single sentence. Take a look at that last statement. It makes no sense. If you want to talk, then you are going to have to at least attempt to make sense.

I really have no intention of going back on this thread to demonstrate what you did or didn't suggest. I distinctly remember you expounding on the difference between a chicken and an egg. The chicken, according to you, has a genetic makeup that is different from the hen, while the grocery store egg, is entirely that of the hen.

If that is how you "distinctly" remember that point, then your entire memory is called into question. I never made any such argument. Look at what you are suggesting. The chicken, according to me, has a genetic makeup that is different from the hen. HELLO!! The hen and the chicken are one in the same.

The point I made in reference to chickens and eggs was that if a hen that is not mated lays an egg, an egg is all she lays. If she is mated, however, she is laying a zygote. I have never tried to make any case for eggs, chickens, or zygotes being of an entirely different genetic makeup. If a chicken has not been mated, the egg she lays is easily identifiable as belonging to her body while if she has been mated, the zygote is easily identifiable as not belonging to her body. The genetic makeup of each, however is Gallus domesticus.

Here is a link to the post in question. If you are going to attempt to dissasemble my argument, you are simply going to have to be accurate in your description of my argument.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17996&postcount=57

I would imagine that a debater of your caliber wouldn't resort to dishonesty yourself.

Of course I wouldn't. You have misrepresented my words twice now in as many posts. What does that say about your honesty?

No. It was your claim that the idea of personhood has been subjected to logical rigor - proof of which you offered a dictionary definition 'genus homo, specie sapien, sub-specie sapien'.

Strike that, now you have misrepresented my words 3 times now in two posts. I said that you can look up person in any "LEGAL DICTIONARY" and you will find that the word is synonomous with human being. I am not the one who determined that human being and person were synonomous but according to the law, they are.

Now, I have asked for an epistemological standard for human existence and you have not given any. Do I take it that your idea of logical rigor is nothing more than and intuitive assertion?

Sorry, this is not a subject for philosophosizing. As I said, if I had to resort to philosophical slight of hand to make my case, I would not join the argument. Likewise, your attempts at philosophical slight of hand are always going to fail. If you can't make an honest argument, then why bother?

Is the paradox entirely unrelated to the discussion?

In the case of my position, yes it is. There is no paradox within my position.

 

[palerider]

Where is the logical rigor in the statement 'the offspring of human beings is a human being', eh? Or do you suppose to conclude your argument with nothing but the premise you just stated?

I fear that you have either completely misunderstood my position, or that in your eagerness to defeat it, you have found that you must torture it beyond recognition in order to make any argument at all against it. Already, you have misrepresented my position no less than 3 times. When you can demonstrate that you understand my position we can continue.

 

[palerider]

And when you equate a human being with personhood, as you did countless times, the circular argument becomes quite evident. Do not think that the intent of your argument isn't clear.

No. The law equates personhood with being a human being. My position begins with me (point A) and is corroborated by every legal dictionary that I can find (point B) Point A to Point B is not a circular argument.

You have determined that the limit at which a human being starts to exist is CONCEPTION and yet you claim personhood for an organism without the benefit of CONCEPTION.

Is the word conception not a noun that describes the act of being concieved? And is the word concieved not a verb that means to form? A human being is formed (concieved) whether the process is fertilization, cloning, or mitosis, which is the case when identical twins form.

Word games are not going to win this one for you.

Or do I need to point you to a dictionary meaning of the word, hmmm?

Maybe you should have referred to the dictionary before you made the argument.

 

[palerider]

I have to hand it to you, that is an excellent point.

The point failed. Are you here just to cheer or what?

 

[vyo476]

The point failed. Are you here just to cheer or what?

More or less. Were I "cheering" for you I doubt you'd complain. Anyway, if there were new/interesting points brought up on the topic more than once every few months, maybe I'd chime in with more.

Or maybe if it wasn't a pointless debate I'd chime in with more. Take your pick.

 

[palerider]

More or less. Were I "cheering" for you I doubt you'd complain. Anyway, if there were new/interesting points brought up on the topic more than once every few months, maybe I'd chime in with more.

I believe that at this point, I have dismantled everything that the pro choice side has to say.

Or maybe if it wasn't a pointless debate I'd chime in with more. Take your pick.

A million human beings per year denied their very right to live in this country alone is a pointless debate?

And no, I don't need cheerleaders. They just clutter up the debate. Cheering for lost points, etc.

 

[numinus]

Do you have any idea what you are trying to say? Did you get a new dictionary and feel the need to use all the big words in a single sentence. Take a look at that last statement. It makes no sense. If you want to talk, then you are going to have to at least attempt to make sense.

Thou shall not murder is a fundamental imperative arising from the operation of natural law. Murder is the deliberate killing of another person/human being.

If anyone is to abide by this imperative, one therefore, must know infallibly, not only human existence, but standard for which an existence is deemed human, as well. Otherwise, how can anyone abide by it?

The nature of human knowledge is PRECISELY the subject matter of EPISTEMOLOGY.

Does the statement now make sense to you?

If that is how you "distinctly" remember that point, then your entire memory is called into question. I never made any such argument. Look at what you are suggesting. The chicken, according to me, has a genetic makeup that is different from the hen. HELLO!! The hen and the chicken are one in the same.

The point I made in reference to chickens and eggs was that if a hen that is not mated lays an egg, an egg is all she lays. If she is mated, however, she is laying a zygote. I have never tried to make any case for eggs, chickens, or zygotes being of an entirely different genetic makeup. If a chicken has not been mated, the egg she lays is easily identifiable as belonging to her body while if she has been mated, the zygote is easily identifiable as not belonging to her body. The genetic makeup of each, however is Gallus domesticus.

Hence the point on clones - which is easily identifiable as 'belonging to her body'. And if one considers the extent of genetic manipulation or natural mutations that is possible, there really isn't a way to determine personhood until birth.

Here is a link to the post in question. If you are going to attempt to dissasemble my argument, you are simply going to have to be accurate in your description of my argument.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17996&postcount=57

I am accurate.

Of course I wouldn't. You have misrepresented my words twice now in as many posts. What does that say about your honesty?

You have presented a circular statement in support of your argument. And when I pointed it out, you accuse me of offering straw man. What is that, if not dishonesty, eh? At the very least, that is a case for incompetence.

Strike that, now you have misrepresented my words 3 times now in two posts. I said that you can look up person in any "LEGAL DICTIONARY" and you will find that the word is synonomous with human being. I am not the one who determined that human being and person were synonomous but according to the law, they are.

You have asserted that personhood has been subjected to logical rigor, did you not? I asked for the epistemological standard for this to which you gave a dictionary definition, did you not?

The law nor the supreme court has not made a determination of personhood. That is why roe is based on viability.

Sorry, this is not a subject for philosophosizing. As I said, if I had to resort to philosophical slight of hand to make my case, I would not join the argument. Likewise, your attempts at philosophical slight of hand are always going to fail. If you can't make an honest argument, then why bother?

The only reason one cannot directly refute your personhood argument is the FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT STATED ANY ARGUMENT TO DEFINE IT.

Jurisprudence arises from natural law, and natural law merely assumes personhood.

You attempted an epistemological standard with your human parents-human offspring argument which was effectively struck down as a circular fallacy.

What you have left is legal precedent - which is quite absurd considering we are talking of a nation whose economic prosperity was based on slavery.

In the case of my position, yes it is. There is no paradox within my position.

You shouldn't criticize another's statement if you have no competence in the subject matter. The paradox of the excluded middle arises when two contradicting conclusion arise from an 'or' proposition at the same time.

Your entire argument of personhood is an 'or' proposition - the rights associated with a person inevitably follows from his existence. An organism is either a person or not and deliberate abortion, either murder or not.

 

[numinus]

I believe that at this point, I have dismantled everything that the pro choice side has to say.




A million human beings per year denied their very right to live in this country alone is a pointless debate?

And no, I don't need cheerleaders. They just clutter up the debate. Cheering for lost points, etc.

You have not dismantled anything unless you provide a clear and rational definition of a person. Your legal dictionary meaning couldn't possibly be mistaken as logical rigor since taxonomy is an arbitrary classification invented merely for the biological studies.

 

[vyo476]

I believe that at this point, I have dismantled everything that the pro choice side has to say.

Which rather calls into question why you continue posting in these threads. If you've "dismantled everything that the pro choice side has to say," would there be any point in continuing the debate?

A million human beings per year denied their very right to live in this country alone is a pointless debate?

As a debate, yes. Abortion is an unreconcilable moral quandry - the two sides will never agree. Yelling at each other about it isn't going to solve the problem, and none the solutions put forth by either side can be agreed upon by both. Finding and implementing solutions would be a much worthier usage of time. I tried starting a thread a few months ago on finding ways around abortion - but people would rather come to these threads and argue in a circular fashion. Fine. If, every now and then, someone breaks out of the circle with a new point, I'll take notice. Otherwise, enjoy.

 

[numinus]

No. The law equates personhood with being a human being. My position begins with me (point A) and is corroborated by every legal dictionary that I can find (point B) Point A to Point B is not a circular argument.

No.

Your argument is as follows:

1. A fetus is a person (premise)

2. The offspring of human beings is a human being (circular logic)

3. A human being is a person (legal definition of person)

4. Therefore, a fetus is a person (circular fallacy)

Take note that statement 3 itself is a conclusion derived from an entirely different variety of faulty logic.

1. A human being is a person (premise)

2. Natural law is the immutable principle that imbues a human being with the inalienable rights of a person (ontological argument)

3. Jurisprudence upholds the principles of natural law. (definition of jurisprudence)

4. Therefore, a human being is a person (conclusion derived from ontological principle)

Is the word conception not a noun that describes the act of being concieved? And is the word concieved not a verb that means to form? A human being is formed (concieved) whether the process is fertilization, cloning, or mitosis, which is the case when identical twins form.

Word games are not going to win this one for you.



Maybe you should have referred to the dictionary before you made the argument.

I am way ahead of you in the thinking department.

The purpose of cloning, ostensibly, is to artificially manufacture REPLACEMENT body parts - NOT to create another organism with the inalienable rights of a person. It is a manifestation of supreme absurdity that a procedure entailing countless man-hours of research, costing millions of dollars, and employing the latest technology in human genetics should be undertaken to replace an otherwise common natural process.

The word 'concieve' is associated with the process of 'creation' - an existence formed out of nothing. Within the human experience, creation is restricted to ideas, that is, outside the distinct context of pro-creation from human reproduction.

Lastly, the operation of natural law, including the natural rights of man, are imbued by the CREATOR as a consequence of the ORDER OF CREATION - that is, a CONTINGENT EXISTENCE arising from a NECESSARY EXISTENCE. If the natural rights of man can arise from the process of cloning, then it would seem that the natural rights of man is GIVEN BY OTHER MEN - in complete contradiction with the ideas on which the nation was built.

 

[palerider]

You obviously like games, and you clearly believe that they have a place within this discussion, so lets play one.

You are on trial for your life. You haven't done anything, but you are on trial for your one and only life none the less. The prosecutor rises and states that he is going to delve into the philosophical roots of the concept of guilt and innocence and right and wrong and the notion of rights themselves. And in fact, he is going to examine, and call into question the very foundations of a legal system that has been established to protect those rights and make decisions based on guilt and innocence as if any such thing actually exists and in the end, ask the jury to allow the state to end your life because he is going to prove to the jury that they actually have no right to involve themselves in the issue that exists between you and the state.

When your legal representative rightly stands to object to having such evidence entered into the record against you, do you stay his hand and tell him to let the man continue because you like a good debate or do you let your lawyer object and remind the prosecution that your life is on the line here and the jury is only here to examine the facts as they exist and make a determination based on them?

I submit that if you say that you stop your lawyer and let the prosecutioh continue with his philosophical "evidence" against you, then you are either A) a liar who will say anything in a debate to give your argument the appearance of rationality, or B) insane. If you allow your lawyer to stop the prosecution and insisist that only the facts as they exist be entered into evidence against you for the jury to consider, then you admit that your entire argument is philosophical slight of hand and is based upon standards that you would never allow to be used against you if it were your one and only life that was on the line.

What do you do? Answer, and then we can continue.

 

[palerider]

Which rather calls into question why you continue posting in these threads. If you've "dismantled everything that the pro choice side has to say," would there be any point in continuing the debate?

That is the nature of this discussion. You tear down their argument, prove that the foundation for their position is specious, wave goodbye to them when they slink away and then watch for them attempt to use the same specious arguments on someone else, at which time you step in to prove that their argument is based on a lie all over again. It is the basic dishonesty of the pro choice side that demands that the discussion continue.

As a debate, yes. Abortion is an unreconcilable moral quandry

No it isn't. Fashion an argument with which you can deny the very right to live to every single human being. If you can do that, you eliminate what you call the "moral quandry" If you can't do it, then you demonstrate that the "moral quandry" never really existed in the first place.

- the two sides will never agree.

One side of the discussion is inherently dishonest. Of course they won't agree. In order to accept pro choice you must accept as truth a string of provable lies. What sort of person does that?

Finding and implementing solutions would be a much worthier usage of time. I tried starting a thread a few months ago on finding ways around abortion - but people would rather come to these threads and argue in a circular fashion. Fine. If, every now and then, someone breaks out of the circle with a new point, I'll take notice. Otherwise, enjoy.

There is one way around abortion exactly as there is one way around murder, assault, arson, armed robbery, perjury, and any other crime you care to name. Don't do it. And if you are going to argue for more education ask yourself if you would be willing to strike all laws from the books and rely on education as another way "around" crime.

And what new point? Philosophical slight of hand was the basis for the decision on Roe v Wade in the first place. Sophistry is the oldest form of argument on this topic.

 

[vyo476]

No it isn't. Fashion an argument with which you can deny the very right to live to every single human being. If you can do that, you eliminate what you call the "moral quandry" If you can't do it, then you demonstrate that the "moral quandry" never really existed in the first place.

The moral quandry exists between the competing rights of life and freedom, ie, the child's life versus the mother's freedom.

Why would fashioning an argument in which it is okay to deny the right to live to "every single human being" be relevant to the argument?

There is one way around abortion exactly as there is one way around murder, assault, arson, armed robbery, perjury, and any other crime you care to name. Don't do it. And if you are going to argue for more education ask yourself if you would be willing to strike all laws from the books and rely on education as another way "around" crime.

Outlawing something does not prevent it from happening. After all, all the illegal activites you enumerated still occur frequently.

Changing society's mind on something is a delicate, complicated, and necessarily subtle process. Simply saying, "It's wrong! Don't do it!" isn't going to change anyone's mind and is just going to polarize them against you (you may have noticed). So if you want to "win" the debate and be self-satisfied while the people who were once getting abortions legally are still going to do it illegally (albeit in lesser numbers and at greater risk), then fine, congrats.

Education works well as a first step. Implementing more education does not mean that, as prevailing attitutdes toward the practice change, making it illegal would not happen. In fact, increases in education - and some handy breakthroughs in contraception - would probably help your case for banning abortion more than you are.

You seem to be looking for an immediate solution to what is at its core a societal problem. Those types of issues don't have immediate solutions that don't come without massive repurcussions. Whatever happened to liberals being the "kings of unintended consequences"?