For me though, the real question (going back to my point about difference in how we value different humans) is this: If you had to choose between preserving the life of a 10 week old fetus, a 10 year old boy, a serial killer & a terminally ill cancer patient, who would you save & in what order would you save them?
^I seriously doubt most people would choose at random + I’m also fairly certain I could predict the order in which most people would preserve or not, each life, if they were pushed into making a decision^
[/quote]
Logical fallacy. The above never has and never will be a genuine reality (having to choose) so therefore in practical terms it is an irrelevant argument.
[/quote]
It’s not a logical fallacy, it’s a hypothetical (granted it is an unlikely scenario), though, the ecological validity of most hypothetical questions is almost always secondary to the moral conundrum they illustrate.
EDIT
Actually, on reflection, the hypothetical I offered isn’t all thay fantastical at all (especially in times of war & other desperate situations). It would rarely happen as a clear-cut choice, though, plenty of people have been co-erced into making decisions as to who lives (or at the very least who will LIKELY survive)in various unpleasant circumstances.
For me though, the real question (going back to my point about difference in how we value different humans) is this: If you had to choose between preserving the life of a 10 week old fetus, a 10 year old boy, a serial killer & a terminally ill cancer patient, who would you save & in what order would you save them?
^I seriously doubt most people would choose at random + I’m also fairly certain I could predict the order in which most people would preserve or not, each life, if they were pushed into making a decision^
[/quote]
Logical fallacy. The above never has and never will be a genuine reality (having to choose) so therefore in practical terms it is an irrelevant argument.
[/quote]
It’s not a logical fallacy, it’s a hypothetical (granted it is an unlikely scenario), though, the ecological validity of most hypothetical questions is almost always secondary to the moral conundrum they illustrate.
[/quote]
IF we do run with your hypothetical one can easily make the case that the 10 week old fetus is THE most innocent of the examples and therefore more worthy of life than any of the rest.[/quote]
Possibly, though that line of reasoning would over-look the medical risk of pregnancy, the ability & desire for at least one (ideally both) parents to want kids, the distinct possibility of the child growing up to be a complete fuck-up due to not ever really being wanted/cared for properly etc.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote] #1: Straw man fallacy. NO argument was made stating that an egg(oocyte) of a species that uses sexual reproduction is a human or a person. Obviously an egg’s genetic information is generated exclusively from the donor organism. Therefore, it is only a single specialized cell of that organism and not a unique organism of the species.
#2: Straw man again. The word tree refers to the adult stage of an oak. Obviously, a dormant seed is not a tree anymore than a fertilized egg is an adult. However, That Oak nut(acorn) is an Oak. Likewise, a human zygote is a human.
#3: Obvious straw man again. A dress is not a living organism. It has none of the qualities of biology by which a living organism is defined. So obviously, no one was arguing that organic mater, much less that the living organism which manufactured that organic mater, is the same as a good manufactured from that material.
#4: Contains all the biological qualities of a living organism and once both cells undergo nuclear fusion(momentarily close from that picture) it has unique genetic identity from either parent as is the entire body of a living human(assuming picture is of human gametes).
[quote]rambodian wrote:
This is the real world, stop living in utopia and realize that life is hard and brutal, freedom is not free, and to live is not a RIGHT, it is EARNED. Pro lifers live in utopia, I would rather be dead, not born at all, if i was gonna live with massive deformations, or be raped, molested, killed brutally as a baby.
More over, I would not want to be born if I was not wanted.
But I still think that many abortions are unnecessary, but not ALL of them.[/quote]
Oh brother.
Ok, so what did you do to earn the right to live?
[quote]rambodian wrote:
…and to live is not a RIGHT, it is EARNED. Pro lifers live in utopia…
[/quote]
Oh brother, do we get all the looney tunes on here or what. RogueVampire, are you in posting in PWI under this Rambodian the Pol Pot Cambodian moniker?
[/quote]
I think that was the dumbest counter I have ever heard. ‘earned’ LOL! I don’t recall putting in over time to get to be born…Honestly, it’s not like your trying to be the starting QB on the Patriots.
To be as concise as possible: I know the slaughter of the unborn solves nothing. Prove otherwise, please.
If a mother has a child, guess what happens if the father doesn’t want to support said child? The government will garnish wages until the child has their needs taken care of. The government will get the money out of the father. The GOVERNMENT does not like competition ; )
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I am NOT following. Are you saying societies problems can be solved with abortion, or even the control of those problems? Please clarify.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Omigod, are unborn babies human? What a relevant discussion. In this imperfect world the only thing to discuss is how balance abortions and societal problems. The number of abortions will never be zero but how low can you get in an open society, that’s worth discussing. and what are the means to reach that.
It wasn’t really adressed to you so forget it. But for the sake of discussion, do you think the problem with abortions is solved if it is prohibited? Is it going to have repercussions? Should men be bound by law to fatherhood as strongly as women are naturally bound to motherhood? If you don’t take responsibility for your child you go to jail, right? Do you go there repeatedly till your child is of full age if you refuse to act responsibly?[/quote]
Please quote me where I typed anything about banning education or even saying it was bad. Please spend numerous hours pouring over my posts finding where I am saying that the education of people to stop abortions is a bad thing?
I have a problem with birth control that does NOT allow a fetus to implant on the uterine wall. Big difference Mak, but thank you for placing words in my mouth.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I am NOT following. Are you saying societies problems can be solved with abortion, or even the control of those problems? Please clarify.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Omigod, are unborn babies human? What a relevant discussion. In this imperfect world the only thing to discuss is how balance abortions and societal problems. The number of abortions will never be zero but how low can you get in an open society, that’s worth discussing. and what are the means to reach that.
It wasn’t really adressed to you so forget it. But for the sake of discussion, do you think the problem with abortions is solved if it is prohibited? Is it going to have repercussions? Should men be bound by law to fatherhood as strongly as women are naturally bound to motherhood? If you don’t take responsibility for your child you go to jail, right? Do you go there repeatedly till your child is of full age if you refuse to act responsibly?[/quote]
I’ve said numerous times that a realistic solution would be to simply educate on birth control, and making it available. They don’t want a realistic solution, because if it had the desired effect, they wouldn’t be able to complain loudly about it anymore.[/quote]
Many have already addressed this. Yet I have to chime in as well. In America life IS a right!! Prove otherwise, please.
[quote]rambodian wrote:
This is the real world, stop living in utopia and realize that life is hard and brutal, freedom is not free, and to live is not a RIGHT, it is EARNED. Pro lifers live in utopia, I would rather be dead, not born at all, if i was gonna live with massive deformations, or be raped, molested, killed brutally as a baby.
More over, I would not want to be born if I was not wanted.
But I still think that many abortions are unnecessary, but not ALL of them.[/quote]
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Short answer—NO! A woman can do what she wants with her body. ROE V. WADE will NEVER be overturned!!!
Live with it, you freakin religious nutjobs!
Love to stop by from time to time to see what the crazy 22% are doing.
Never dissapointed.[/quote]
Um, Professor, it seems that you’ve misspelled “disappointed.” And “nut jobs” would be two words. I usually never correct spelling errors on the board, I make plenty of them. But then most people don’t try to pass themselves off as a Professor. When all you do is skate on occasion insult those whom you disagree with usually misspell a few words and leave.
I don’t think you’ve ever actually even tried to back up your case.
What’s really going on here, and what these guys in large part won’t admit, is that they postulate some essential “ethereal” quality that makes things what they are. It’s similar to how folks like Aristotle approached nature: this flower is a flower by virtue of its flowerness, which is of course essential to its very being, and as essential, has always been present an essential to the organism, even prior to it appearing as a flower.
At the end of the day, that’s metaphysics, not physics (or an examination of something within the physical world via science). Science (and observation in general) have us define things based on their attributes, and work from there. When we identify enough similar attributes in an organism or phenomenon we may decide that they are same type or species of phenomena.
We don’t work backwards and assert that there is a common essence present (in this case humanity), and then go from there. Yet, that is exactly what these folks are doing, and despite being super-simplistic, the picture you’re showing illustrates it well: they are not the same thing, despite having a definite, necessary relationship to each other.
