Defense of the abortion/Discussion about Ethics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nonatheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My example relied on the future as well, sleeping person will regain full personhood after that temporary state. So, they are person in the past, person in the future, but have limited personhood in this moment.
l would not count that as significant.
While fetus is not person at this moment, was never a person but will become on in the future.
 
My example relied on the future as well, sleeping person will regain full personhood after that temporary state.
The future is irrelevant too because it doesn’t apply in the fetus’s case so logically it doesn’t change anything. So all that is left is the past and the past has a person and a non-person, so choosing is arbitrary.
 
Last edited:
l think past has a lot to do with this. l personally see a big difference between having something, than temporary losing it, just to get it back in the near future and not having something to begin with.
But l guess this could be an issue we just fundamentally disagree on
 
l don’t know how you can ask for this in good faith,
do you want a proof that more complex brain= higher intelligence?
You are making many scientific claims on this thread, One example was
‘bugs dont feel pain’ I gave you studies that show findings that insects do feel pain.

You then argued over brain size and complexity of nervous systems. I asked you to show the science.

Yes, I want peer reviewed science backing any claims like this you make.

Otherwise they are just white noise.

Stop the white noise and show me the science on all these claims,

A new born baby is not self aware? Show me the science to prove that.
 
Last edited:
l personally see a big difference between having something, than temporary losing it, just to get it back in the near future and not having something to begin with.
But l guess this could be an issue we just fundamentally disagree on
Actually it could be the opposite where someone doesn’t have something and only gains it temporarily only to lose it again.
 
You one study isn’t a settled science, more research needs to be done.
There is a study supporting every position possible, not all of them are true.
l usually avoid showing only studies, because to read studies you have to have academic knowlage of methodology .
 
That would be the example of, bank giving a poor person money, than realising that was a mistake and taking it back.
That wouldn’t apply to personhood in any way.
 
That would be the example of, bank giving a poor person money, than realising that was a mistake and taking it back.
That wouldn’t apply to personhood in any way.
What unarbitrary principle could you use to show that it can’t be that way?
 
As for sentience, there is no science to prove sentience because sentience is not a scientific concept.
There are characteristics that make sentience, those characteristics include the ability to feel pain, self awareness, emotions etc
 
You one study isn’t a settled science, more research needs to be done.
There is a study supporting every position possible, not all of them are true.
l usually avoid showing only studies, because to read studies you have to have academic knowlage of methodology .
My one scientific study negates your hypothesis.
Do you understand science?
You are simply shooting down your own arguments for person hood with your statement

‘There is a study supporting every position possible,’

Stop the white noise, back up your claims. If you do not have the academic knowledge to understand the science
Stop
Quoting
any scientific claims.
I do have the education. I find this so frustrating with people who argue one point purely based on popular rhetoric.

All you really have is your un supported opinion that woman should be able to kill her unborn child, with no substantial reasons for it from a science standpoint.

If you wish to argue from social perspectives, again you need to understand what arguments you present
 
Last edited:
l mean, that would be something like young human becoming a person(arbitrary), just to take brain damage and become braindead.
That’s the only example l can think of.
 
You are definitally acting in bad faith. When l am given one single study, l don’t usually take it as 100% truth(especially if it goes against popular knowlage).
Have you read the entire study, while paying close attantion to it’s methodology?

Asking things like ‘Give me a peer reviewed study that shows that more complex brains=higher intelligence’ shows to me that you don’t really care about have a productive conversation.
 
You are definitally acting in bad faith
Asking for a valid scientific discussion if scientific claims are put on the table is a normal thing people do. It is bad faith to attempt to negate a presentation of facts with white noise arguing
Asking things like ‘Give me a peer reviewed study that shows that more complex brains=higher intelligence’ shows to me that you don’t really care about have a productive conversation.
If a person makes a claim the other person will make the request to the initiator to prove it, show me the work, the results, the science, .

You have come to CAF to argue your reasons for being pro choice.
Dont expect us to say well ok nonatheist says it so it must be true,
Expect us to say prove a chocolate tastes like a chocolate and salt tastes like salt, and an unseasoned new york strip tastes bland
 
Last edited:
Asking for peer reviewed study a common knowlage is dishonest at best, if l claim that heart pumps blood, would l be required to prove that statement?
l would say no, because that follows under common knowlage.

Do you honestly disbelieve that more complex brain=high intelligence? l want an honest answer.
Or are you just asking just for the sake of it?
 
Asking for peer reviewed study a common knowlage is dishonest at best, if l claim that heart pumps blood, would l be required to prove that statement?
l would say no, because that follows under common knowlage.

Do you honestly disbelieve that more complex brain=high intelligence? l want an honest answer.
Or are you just asking just for the sake of it?
What is a peer reviewed study?

You can claim your foot pumps blood if you like but you will have to validate that with the science.

What I believe or not, my opinion doesnt count, The truth, the facts are the only thing that counts.

If I cut your foot off, will you feel pain? Will your pain be more intense then the pain of childbirth, of appendicitis , of a heart attack? How do we know the answer to that question?

Are you one of the rare people who does not feel pain? Do you have the use of your foot or did you lose it and no longer need it in the sense of the pain or feel mechanisms of your body. Ie does that foot register touch or pain. Is it sending distress signals to your brain?

So many variables we must measure.

We dont do that by saying man flu is the worst , we measure it.

If I pull wings off a fly, how on earth would you know if that is more painful or less painful than a human foot being cut off. You say humans are no more important then animals so you cannot argue your pain would be more important then a fly’s pain. In fact you could argue, you have two feet and will survive without one foot, but a fly needs its wings to survive.
 
Last edited:
l rejected your ways of a ‘dicussion’, it’s just bad faith. We both know that heart pumps blood, so you asking me is unproductive and dishonest.
Another example would be us talking about the gravity of the moon or whatever, and l bring that the earth is round. If you ask me to prove that the earth is round rather than flat for example, l will quite that dicussion alltogether.

Two things, first it’s never 100% possible to know what animals are feeling. However, it’s easiest to find if a mammal is suffering, rather than fly fo example.
Also, the less complex nervous system would indicate the lesser ability to feel pain.

Also, this dicussion turned to mess because,
original topic was and still is ethics of abortion, it’s fine to challange my scientific arguments that actually matter in this conversation

The fact that more complex brain= more intelligence isn’t one of them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top