The law and logic are arbitrary, but the philosophical slight of hand that your argument is based on is not? You are defending your position with arguments that are simply made up. They have no basis in fact and they are, once again, unprovable, untestable, and unknowable.
The law is not based in "fact" or "science" - it's based on human cultural emotions and senses of right and wrong - in other words, "simply made up". How does that make your position any stronger then mine?
The only scientific and factual certainty here is that the "unborn" is indeed of the human species from conception to death. There is nothing "factual" that states it's anything special or more worth preserving than any other species. This is all based on cultural value judgements - not fact: unprovable, untestable, and unknowable.
You keep covering this ground but you have conceeded it already.
No - I conceded I couldn't defeat the logical path you outlined within the constraints you gave. I can't. I admit it.
However - I keep covering this ground because you've never really addressed it
A quick bit of research indicates that no one has been executed for sodomy in this country since the 1500's and this wasn't even a country at that time. But even if law was on the books that allowed that you could be executed for sodomy, it would still support my position. In order to forfiet your life for sodomy, law would have to be on the books that enumerated specifically which right was being denied (the right to live), who it was being denied to (sodomites), and why it was being denied (practicing sodomy).
Whether someone has been or has not been in modern times is irrelevant. It existed on the books and indicates how arbritrary and illogical the law can be. There are many more ridiculous examples I could give that are still on the books. To use that as a
foundation for arguing ethics, inherent rights or decisions on reproduction is iffy.
If there were law on the books that specifically denied unborn human beings the right to live until such time as they are born or reach a stage of development at which they could live outside then this argument would not exist as all the "T's" would be crossed and all the "i's" would be dotted. The law might not be right, but the killing would be happening in accordance with our laws. This conflict rages because your side of the argument wants the freedom to operate outside of the law. To deny the fundamental right to live to an entire class of human beings without legislating law that enumerates which right is being denied, who it is being denied to, and why it is being denied.
And what authority, exactly, are you calling on when you voice your arguments; and are you saying that the philosophical slight of hand that your entire position is based on is not an arbitrary construct.
Actually, no. This is carrying the debate out of the realm of stem cell research - and to be honest, I might give on this point that arguably, a good case could be made for not continuing on fetal stem cell research - I have not yet decided.
The conflict is not raging because "my side" wants to operate outside the law - the law does not recognize the unborn as "persons" -and never has except in a couple of unusual and highly specific cases. It's as simple as that. That is a fact at this point in time.
We've pretty much already crossed the line into abortion issues here so I'll go one step further - the conflict is raging because, ultimately one side wants control over their personal reproductive choices and does not regard the "unborn" as "persons". The other side regards them as "persons" with equal rights to the mother from conception to end. No one feels they are killing "babies" and no one feels that women have "no rights". Most people are somewhere in the middle - supporting some choice but not unlimited choice.
At no point in this debate have you addressed what if anything gives law any authority - it's not science, it's not "fact", we've already shown it can be very abritrary and illogical.
What makes humans special and worth preserving over any other species - you say the law. Why? It's illogical - we've shown that.
You referenced somewhere in this 34 pages a Truth. What truth?
You view life and issues in clear lines of demarkation - I view them as a continuum. That might be a rather fundamental difference between our ways of thinking.
After all this discussion, you still don't understand my position do you? I have never argued that human life is worth preserving at any stage simply because I say so. I have argued that human beings, at any stage of development, have the right to live unless there is law on the books that denies them that right.
Ah....I see.....I understand your position. I do not necessarily agree with it. Doesn't Roe vs. Wade deny them that right?
I genuinely don't see where this argument can go from here. You have admitted that the standards by which you argue for killing unborns for research would not be acceptable to you if it were your life on the line. Your defense of that is that they are not persons but then you reach the conclusion that they are not persons by using a standard of reasoning that you have also admitted would not be acceptable to you if your life was on the line. In essence, and in reality, you say that it is OK to kill them because you say it is OK to kill them. No more. No less.
Actually...in terms of this particular debate - stem cell research,
I give to your argument because this debate is very narrowly framed. Again - logic and law are not the only parameters within which to make what are ultimately ethical in nature. The entire "right" to life is an ethical debate.
I am dissapointed though, that you do not answer any of the questions I put forth.
So - I'll repeat: I concede.
