A Philosophical Arguement against Abortion

[Betterave]

Hmm. I’m not sure why you thought those changes were helpful, but as long as you take my meaning, I’m satisfied.

I’d say you’ve displayed a general misunderstanding of the specific nature of judgments as opposed to preferences in this thread and it wasn’t clear what your meaning was in your last post that I attempted to fix. It still seemed possibly confused. When you use the expression ‘preference’ (or ‘judgment’) you can be referring to preferences in general, as such (the general notion of preferring something), or to particular instances of preferences (preferring red tulips). When you say “preferences are sometimes understood as expressions of values or value judgments” it’s simply not at all clear what you’re trying to say and you don’t clarify either concept in the least. And it’s not at all clear to me what you mean by equating “the objects of value judgments” and “the values themselves”; or by saying that preferences “are sometimes understood to refer to…the objects of value.” “Refer to”? In what sense? “Sometimes”? Under what conditions?

 

[hatsoff]

I’d say you’ve displayed a general misunderstanding of the specific nature of judgments as opposed to preferences in this thread and it wasn’t clear what your meaning was in your last post that I attempted to fix.

Well, I can only assure you I understand quite well. I’m also sorry to hear that you didn’t take my meaning after all. However, this thread has veered way off from my area of interest, so I’m going to leave it at that.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think you’re still confused.
I understand the distinction you’re referring to, but you are using it in a confused way, not me.

Apart from giving off a false sense of confidence, “assertions” will not help the discussion. I took the time to explain why i think i am right, therefore i think its only charitable that you should do the same.

If you had a drawing of a table and I destroyed that, I would have destroyed your table?

No, because a drawing of a table or a drawing of a baby is not in production towards the actuality of a real table or a real baby!. It is not in the immediate nature of a drawing to become a table or a baby. It is not the immediate end to which it is in act. However, if i valued the drawing of a table, i would be upset. But the drawing of a table and a drawing of a baby is not actually a table or a baby.

Its not difficult, and thus i don’t see why you would have failed to understand the difference :banghead:.

If I cut down a tree you were growing that you were going to make a table from, I would have destroyed your table?

If i was making the tree specifically for the actuality of a table, then yes i would have been upset, because the table is the end for which i was growing the tree; and thus the tree has value in that fundamental respect. This much i have clearly showed you above, but then again you would have to create a “straw-men” in order to give the illusion of winning this debate.

You kill the baby when you punch it because it’s an *actual *(not just possible and not just potential) baby, not because it’s “the definite end product of conception.”

You are not looking at the issue metaphysically. You are just labeling something as a baby without justifying it.

Its a baby in virtue of the end to which it is in act. A thing is according to the purpose for which it was created. A table is a table and has the value of a table because that is the “end” for which it was created; otherwise it is just a bit a wood molded into a particular shape and does not on that factor alone have the value of a table. I know that you have intelligence because your nature is in act towards that potential end. Even when you are asleep, or in a coma, or unconscious, “intellect” is still in your immediate nature in so far as your nature is in act for the existence of that end, and your living body is valued as an intelligent being according to the end to which that particular organism is act; in so far as that is the end to which your nature is in act. We only know a person is a person because we witness certain physical entities producing behavior that is personal and intelligent, and it is in virtue of that potential act that we label a particular physical entity as “personal” in nature and not just another entity.

To show how much the end is important in defining the value something, lets take a look brain damage. We respect the value of brain damaged victims, not because they have brain damage, but because we know that had they not been brain damaged they would express the nature of a fully functional person, and it is in virtue of that fact that we feel obligated to care for those with brain damage because they are still persons by nature. And thus actuality alone cannot be the standard to which we place value on something but rather we must include the potential end to which a particular nature is in act, when defining the value something. I know that a human embryo has the same value as a person because it is in actuality toward that end, which is a person. It has the value of a person in virtue of the end to which it is in act. It is in its nature to be a person, and to destroy an embryo would be to destroy that person.

It is as simple as that.

 

[Betterave]

Well, I can only assure you I understand quite well. I’m also sorry to hear that you didn’t take my meaning after all. However, this thread has veered way off from my area of interest, so I’m going to leave it at that.

If you say so.
(Of course the challenge is still on the table for you to try to articulate what you claim to understand - usually “I understand but I can’t explain it” actually means “I don’t understand but I don’t want to admit it”.)

 

[Betterave]

Apart from giving off a false sense of confidence, “assertions” will not help the discussion. I took the time to explain why i think i am right, therefore i think its only charitable that you should do the same.

Your point about assertions is a good one; please take it to heart yourself. You are the one who simply asserted (falsely, I maintain) that my position was based on the failure to make a particular distinction. So please explain the grounds for your assertion.

No, because a drawing of a table or a drawing of a baby is not in production towards the actuality of a real table or a real baby!. It is not in the immediate nature of a drawing to become a table or a baby. It is not the immediate end to which it is in act. However, if i valued the drawing of a table, i would be upset. But the drawing of a table and a drawing of a baby is not actually a table or a baby.

Its not difficult, and thus i don’t see why you would have failed to understand the difference :banghead:.

A drawing of a table in not in production towards the end to which it is in act (the table)…?? Says who? This very much is in the immediate nature of a drawing of a table (think ‘blueprint’ - sorry if that wasn’t clear the first time).

You are not looking at the issue metaphysically. You are just labeling something as a baby without justifying it.

Its a baby in virtue of the end to which it is in act. A thing is according to the purpose for which it was created. A table is a table and has the value of a table because that is the “end” for which it was created; otherwise it is just a bit a wood molded into a particular shape and does not on that factor alone have the value of a table. I know that you have intelligence because your nature is in act towards that potential end. Even when you are asleep, or in a coma, or unconscious, “intellect” is still in your immediate nature in so far as your nature is in act for the existence of that end, and your living body is valued as an intelligent being according to the end to which that particular organism is act; in so far as that is the end to which your nature is in act. We only know a person is a person because we witness certain physical entities producing behavior that is personal and intelligent, and it is in virtue of that potential act that we label a particular physical entity as “personal” in nature and not just another entity.

I don’t think this makes sense. Are you sure you’re looking at things metaphysically, and not epistemologically? You’re talking about how we know… that’s epistemology.

To show how much the end is important in defining the value something, lets take a look brain damage. We respect the value of brain damaged victims, not because they have brain damage, but because we know that had they not been brain damaged they would express the nature of a fully functional person, and it is in virtue of that fact that we feel obligated to care for those with brain damage because they are still persons by nature. And thus actuality alone cannot be the standard to which we place value on something but rather we must include the potential end to which a particular nature is in act, when defining the value something. I know that a human embryo has the same value as a person because it is in actuality toward that end, which is a person. It has the value of a person in virtue of the end to which it is in act. It is in its nature to be a person, and to destroy an embryo would be to destroy that person.

It is as simple as that.

No, we do not repect those who are brain-damaged because they might not have been brain-damaged! That would not be real respect *for *the individuals in question. We respect them, hopefully *love *them, because they’re people!

 

[hatsoff]

If you say so.
(Of course the challenge is still on the table for you to try to articulate what you claim to understand - usually “I understand but I can’t explain it” actually means “I don’t understand but I don’t want to admit it”.)

I’m troubled that you apparently think I claimed not to be able to explain it for you. Rather, you’ve asked me to clarify the explanation I’ve already provided, but I have declined your invitation, since, among other reasons, it is outside my area of interest. I encourage you to receive that decline politely.

 

[Betterave]

Sorry, I’ll correct my earlier post:

If you say so.
(Of course the challenge is still on the table for you to try to articulate what you claim to understand - usually “I understand but I don’t want to explain it” actually means “I don’t understand but I don’t want to admit it” - not that it does in your case, of course.)

p.s. I am a little confused as to how and where the thread veered off from what you’re interested in.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A drawing of a table in not in production towards the end to which it is in act (the table)…?? Says who? This very much is in the immediate nature of a drawing of a table (think ‘blueprint’ - sorry if that wasn’t clear the first time).

Now you calling it a blue print to make me look thick. Obviously a blueprint is made for the purpose of designing a table in reality. But a real table is not functionally pending existence due to the existential act of a blue print. A blue print is not developing in to a real table. However i would value that blue print if i was acting for the particular end for which the blue print was made.

You trying very hard to escape my argument and it shows by your attempts to misrepresent the nature of my arguments with your false analogies.

I don’t think this makes sense. Are you sure you’re looking at things metaphysically, and not epistemologically? You’re talking about how we know… that’s epistemology.

Are you saying that epistemology is relevant to metaphysics? When Aquinas proves Gods existence he does not say God exists therefore God exists. He begins with what we “know” through our senses. Also “ends” and “purposes”, which i have been continuously referring to through out this discussion, are thoroughly metaphysical and Thomistic in nature. But perhaps you are not reading my posts properly, or maybe you don’t no much about metaphysics.

No, we do not repect those who are brain-damaged because they might not have been brain-damaged! That would not be real respect *for *the individuals in question. We respect them, hopefully *love *them, because they’re people!

Again you have just blown what i said out of context and for that reason i am not going to respond to you anymore.

In respect of our knowledge, I said, had they not been brain damaged we know that they would have functioned fully as persons. We only know that they are persons, because we know of cases where real people have received brain damage and we know that it is in their proper nature to be personal. We know that there are certain objects or biological natures which normally express human nature. And thus on those grounds, according to our knowledge (whether we are atheist or theist) we choose to value those natures as being in fact people with brain damage instead of objects that use to be people.

 

[Betterave]

Now you calling it a blue print to make me look thick. Obviously a blueprint is made for the purpose of designing a table in reality. But a real table is not functionally pending existence due to the existential act of a blue print. A blue print is not developing in to a real table. However i would value that blue print if i was acting for the particular end for which the blue print was made.

You trying very hard to escape my argument and it shows by your attempts to misrepresent the nature of my arguments with your false analogies.

This is really uncalled for. If you had read what I originally wrote with charity, you might have seen without my pointing it out that ‘blueprint’ was the best interpretation of ‘drawing.’ Anyway, if you knew your Aristotle you would know that tables (or generally man-made things) do not have an intrinsic principle of development, so your table-analogy was lame in the first place.

Are you saying that epistemology is relevant to metaphysics? When Aquinas proves Gods existence he does not say God exists therefore God exists. He begins with what we “know” through our senses. Also “ends” and “purposes”, which i have been continuously referring to through out this discussion, are thoroughly metaphysical and Thomistic in nature. But perhaps you are not reading my posts properly, or maybe you don’t no much about metaphysics.

Again you have just blown what i said out of context and for that reason i am not going to respond to you anymore.

In respect of our knowledge, I said, had they not been brain damaged we know that they would have functioned fully as persons. We only know that they are persons, because we know of cases where real people have received brain damage and we know that it is in their proper nature to be personal. We know that there are certain objects or biological natures which normally express human nature. And thus on those grounds, according to our knowledge (whether we are atheist or theist) we choose to value those natures as being in fact people with brain damage instead of objects that use to be people.

Again, your tone is completely uncalled for and your representations of my position are not at all accurate. And I will not respond to you any more either.