How do abortion supporters reconcile their support for abortion . .

[vern_humphrey]

I think it isn’t valid because you don’t want it to be.

It isn’t valid because it isn’t valid – the latest cancer patient isn’t the cancer’s “mother.”

It’s just an idiom meaning something like, “requires, demands, or strongly suggests that this question be asked.”

No.

It’s a debating fallacy in which one side tries to get the other side to accept his argument so he can prove his argument.

Re: the accusation of sophistry–I have not been insincere, nor have I argued with an intent to deceive. I can appreciate your own frustration, but it doesn’tt warrant accusing me of sophistry (basically calling me a liar).

Sophistry. Clever and reasonable argument that is however faulty or misleading.

As in, pretending a cancer is like a baby in its DNA.

Maybe I’m just missing something, Vern. Maybe there’s something in your arguments I just can’t see. Maybe there’s something preventing me from seeing it. And maybe I’m arguing with you in order to try to figure out what that thing is, and in the process, trying to learn where you’re coming from. Maybe it’s a losing battle. I don’t know. But for all the frustration we’ve been through, if I genuinely didn’t care, would I still be here in this forum with you?

Maybe you just like to argue.

I mean, sure, I have a point of view and I’d love for you to be able to see it and respect it, but having very little hope for that happening, maybe I continue to come here to try and learn how to better see and respect your point of view.

Try dropping the tricks – like the cancer argument, the argument that a “universal” example is somehow not acceptable, or that “mystery” is an essential component of a logical argument.

What bogus argument?

Talking about a dead man as a parallel to a living child.

An illustration that we’re perhaps talking about two different things, two different versions of the universe.

I prefer to discuss this universe, following the laws of this universe, and the rules of rational debate.

I never denied the obvious…I think, though, that you assume that what is obvious to you is obvious to others, and when it is not, you are less willing to explain your POV and more willing to insist on it.

Yet one of your objections is that I cannot use an argument that states the obvious – as if the qualities of being obvious and universal rendered the argument invalid.

And writing that, I see that I must condemn myself of the same fallacy. I’ve been arguing with you as if you took my worldview for granted–as if you and I valued the same things…and I’ve been subtly insisting that what I value should be what you value. I apologize for that. I mean that sincerely.

I base my opinion of your worldview on what you write.

I don’t know…substituting emotion for logic is indeed not so good in terms of an argument, and I accept the criticism that I have done so, though I do not apologize for it, at least not insofar as that apology would mean apologizing for my worldview.

Is this a claim that even though we both agree that emotion is not logic, you have the right to use it as if it were?

But a display of emotion and a display of sentimentality remain two different things, no matter how you slice it. For instance, the film “Taxi Driver” is not a particularly sentimental film, but it is disturbing, and powerfully, dramatically emotional. “The Harvey Girls,” however, is a bit sentimental and twee.

I talk about DNA and you talk about movies.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hi Vern. Thanks for everything. I give up. Good night.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

No.

It’s a debating fallacy in which one side tries to get the other side to accept his argument so he can prove his argument.

Forgive me for my incorrect usage:

---

'More recently, to beg the question has been incorrectly used by some as a synonym for “to raise the question”, or “the question really ought to be addressed” ’ –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I was being sloppy.

As in, pretending a cancer is like a baby in its DNA.

Your argument reduces everything to DNA. That’s it. Everything is DNA. Qualitative judgments are impossible. Only the quantitative is possible. You cannot argue that the most significant difference between the cancer and the child is qualitative, that the child has a human soul and is therefore infinitely superior to the cancer. Your argument does not allow for such reasoning. It allows only for comparison of facts regarding DNA. That you don’t like comparisons your argument invites as tests or proofs, or that you find the comparisons distasteful has nothing to do with anything.

So what you’re saying is that you can construct an argument that’s purely quantitative, but when people try to understand how it applies to other situations, you accuse them of failing to make a qualitative judgment?

Maybe you just like to argue.

I don’t, actually.

Try dropping the tricks – like the cancer argument, the argument that a “universal” example is somehow not acceptable, or that “mystery” is an essential component of a logical argument.

I never argued that mystery was an essential component of a logical argument–only that it was essential to my understanding of the world.

Talking about a dead man as a parallel to a living child.

Quote me. Show me where I did this.

Yet one of your objections is that I cannot use an argument that states the obvious

Never once did I tell you could or could not do anything. If you don’t believe me, quote me. Show me where I did.

– as if the qualities of being obvious and universal rendered the argument invalid.

You’re taking my arguments out of context, or conveniently supplying your own. This is a habit of yours, I’ve noticed.

I base my opinion of your worldview on what you write.

That’s interesting.

Is this a claim that even though we both agree that emotion is not logic, you have the right to use it as if it were?

No. It’s not. I don’t really think it matters what I write. You’ll just read whatever you like.

I wrote that I was guilty of your accusation of substituting emotion for logic in my argument, acknowledging that that was not the best thing to do. But while I did not apologize for doing so, I did not thereby claim that I could do so with impunity.

I talk about DNA and you talk about movies.

The part to which I was responding had to do with emotion, not DNA. Context makes that clear. You were alluding to our discussion on sentimentality, or if you were not, that’s how I read your comments. I provided an example of my meaning in context. Again, context makes clear what I was responding to. And yet again, you forget context, take things out of context, or conveniently provide an alternative context. Who is the sophist, Vern?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[ROBERT_CHARBEL]

Hi Mark, It’s wonderful that you have changed your opinion. Thank you “Holy Spirit”,and all concerned… Many Blessings,Robert

 

[vern_humphrey]

Your argument reduces everything to DNA. That’s it. Everything is DNA.

When did I say, “Everything is DNA.” Quote a post of mine that says that.

Qualitative judgments are impossible. Only the quantitative is possible.

DNA is a qualitative issue.

You cannot argue that the most significant difference between the cancer and the child is qualitative, that the child has a human soul and is therefore infinitely superior to the cancer.

Quite the contrary – I do exactly that.

The child has it’s own human DNA, and hence has a soul.

The cancer has the original victim’s slightly modified DNA and hence has no soul.

Your argument does not allow for such reasoning. It allows only for comparison of facts regarding DNA.

I have just shown you wong.

That you don’t like comparisons your argument invites as tests or proofs, or that you find the comparisons distasteful has nothing to do with anything.

Aside from being a personal attack, does that sentence have a meaning?

So what you’re saying is that you can construct an argument that’s purely quantitative, but when people try to understand how it applies to other situations, you accuse them of failing to make a qualitative judgment?

Again, when did I say that? Post something I wrote using those words.

I never argued that mystery was an essential component of a logical argument–only that it was essential to my understanding of the world.

Then why bring it up?

Quote me. Show me where I did this.

Are you claiming you did** not** use a dead body as an example in this discussion?

Never once did I tell you could or could not do anything. If you don’t believe me, quote me. Show me where I did.

Are you claiming you did** not** attack my use of DNA-based arguments?

You’re taking my arguments out of context, or conveniently supplying your own. This is a habit of yours, I’ve noticed.

Are you claiming you did** not** attack my parable of the babies in the box as being “obvious and universal?”

No. It’s not. I don’t really think it matters what I write. You’ll just read whatever you like.

Since you’ve degenerated into personal attacks, I assume you’ve run out of logic.

I wrote that I was guilty of your accusation of substituting emotion for logic in my argument, acknowledging that that was not the best thing to do. But while I did not apologize for doing so, I did not thereby claim that I could do so with impunity.

And you cannot do so and maintain a logical argument.

The part to which I was responding had to do with emotion, not DNA. Context makes that clear. You were alluding to our discussion on sentimentality, or if you were not, that’s how I read your comments. I provided an example of my meaning in context. Again, context makes clear what I was responding to. And yet again, you forget context, take things out of context, or conveniently provide an alternative context.

First you attack emotion, then embrace it, then attack it.

Who is the sophist, Vern?

You are.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hi again, Vern.

When did I say, “Everything is DNA.” Quote a post of mine that says that.

You don’t directly say it, but your argument implies it. Let’s look at your argument again:
 Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

 Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

 But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.
Points two and three indicate that the human-ness and beingness of a living thing are determined exclusively by DNA: If the living thing has human DNA, it is human. If the living thing has human DNA unique to itself, it is a human being.

Your argument says that being a human being depends solely on DNA. Everything comes down to DNA. Where did I misread your argument?

The child has it’s own human DNA, and hence has a soul.

The cancer has the original victim’s slightly modified DNA and hence has no soul.

I understand you to be saying that the presence of a soul follows from having a living body with its own unique DNA relative to its progenitor. A living body with unique DNA relative to its progenitor is proof of the soul.

I further understand you to be saying that a human soul does not subsist in a body characterized by non-unique human DNA relative to its progenitor.

Alright. All this I can agree with to one extent or another.

With reference to your three criteria, however–they do not mention a soul anywhere. All they address are biological structures–DNA.

I have been arguing that the quality of being human is not in the DNA, but in the soul, the presence of which gives meaning and value to the DNA.

Your three criteria are part of a larger discussion of what makes a human being a human being, and to my understanding, they deal with only part of the question–the material part. But it claims to deal with the whole–your criteria say that what makes a human being a human being can be decided with reference only to issues revolving around its DNA. But what makes a human being a human being may include DNA, but it involves something greater as well–the soul. But the soul is not an explicit part of your criteria.

Without mention of the soul, your criteria address humanity only in terms of its biology–the term “human” merely describes one animal among many, one type of DNA among many, which is neither more special nor more priveleged than any other animal DNA. Other animals eat their young. We abort ours. So what?

Without the human soul, we are just another animal. And your criteria do not admit the human soul into the discussion. That’s what I’ve been trying to say, however imperfectly.

Are you claiming you did** not** use a dead body as an example in this discussion?

Context.

The comment to which I responded suggested I had equated a dead man to a living child, or that I set up some sort of parallelism between the two. I did not such thing. Show me if I did, please. Quote me.

Are you claiming you did** not** attack my use of DNA-based arguments?

Context.

The comment to which I was responding suggested that I had told you that you could not use certain arguments. I did no such thing. Arguing with something and telling you you cannot do something are very different things.

Are you claiming you did** not** attack my parable of the babies in the box as being “obvious and universal?”

Context.

The comment to which I was responding suggested that because I found your arguments too vague and general to be useful that I was arguing that universally applicable things are invalid. I made no such argument.

First you attack emotion, then embrace it, then attack it.

Context.

I never once attacked emotion. I attacked sentimentality. Have you yet to recognize the difference between the two, Vern?

You are.

Of course, Vern.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

You don’t directly say it, but your argument implies it. Let’s look at your argument again:

Ahh, so it’s not what I said, but how you chose to cast it.

Your argument says that being a human being depends solely on DNA. Everything comes down to DNA. Where did I misread your argument?

When you wrote the bolded sentence above.

I understand you to be saying that the presence of a soul follows from having a living body with its own unique DNA relative to its progenitor. A living body with unique DNA relative to its progenitor is proof of the soul.

A living human body wtih unique DNA relative to its progenitor is proof of humanity. All humans have souls.

I further understand you to be saying that a human soul does not subsist in a body characterized by non-unique human DNA relative to its progenitor.

Alright. All this I can agree with to one extent or another.

With reference to your three criteria, however–they do not mention a soul anywhere. All they address are biological structures–DNA.

I don’t need to mention the soul to make the argunment the unborn child is fully human. And when debating with athiests, that’s a telling argument.

I have been arguing that the quality of being human is not in the DNA, but in the soul, the presence of which gives meaning and value to the DNA.

But if the being in question is not human, it has no immortal soul, right?

And if it is human, then it does have an immortal soul, right?

Now we cannot see, weigh or measure the soul. But we can see, weigh and measure the DNA.

Your three criteria are part of a larger discussion of what makes a human being a human being, and to my understanding, they deal with only part of the question–the material part. But it claims to deal with the whole–your criteria say that what makes a human being a human being can be decided with reference only to issues revolving around its DNA. But what makes a human being a human being may include DNA, but it involves something greater as well–the soul. But the soul is not an explicit part of your criteria.

The difference is that I use non-negotiable data to prove the unborn child is a human being. My opposite number in the debate can be an athiest, and still not able to discount this data.

Without mention of the soul, your criteria address humanity only in terms of its biology–the term “human” merely describes one animal among many, one type of DNA among many, which is neither more special nor more priveleged than any other animal DNA. Other animals eat their young. We abort ours. So what?

So we do not murder innocent human beings – nor eat them, either.

Without the human soul, we are just another animal. And your criteria do not admit the human soul into the discussion. That’s what I’ve been trying to say, however imperfectly.

Very imperfectly – it is not necessary for me to adevance every possible criteria into this discussion. It is merely necessary to prove, objectively, that the unborn child is a living human being, and all else follows from that proof.

The comment to which I responded suggested I had equated a dead man to a living child, or that I set up some sort of parallelism between the two. I did not such thing. Show me if I did, please. Quote me.

If you say so – so why did you introduce the dead man into the debate?

The comment to which I was responding suggested that I had told you that you could not use certain arguments. I did no such thing. Arguing with something and telling you you cannot do something are very different things.

Then you should have made it clear.

The comment to which I was responding suggested that because I found your arguments too vague and general to be useful that I was arguing that universally applicable things are invalid. I made no such argument.

And in what way is an example of the negligent killing babies in a box not useful to an argument that hinges on whether the thing in the box is a baby or not?

I never once attacked emotion. I attacked sentimentality. Have you yet to recognize the difference between the two, Vern?

Is sentimentality a cognitive manifestation?

Is it a psychomotor manifestation?

Is it an affective manifestation?

It is clearly the latter – it is an emotion.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

A living human body wtih unique DNA relative to its progenitor is proof of humanity. All humans have souls.

And there’s the trouble, Vern! Those are two different propositions that you are unwilling to make one:

1: A living human body with unique DNA relative to its progenitor is proof of humanity.
2: Humans have souls.

You can only pass from Proposition 1 to 2 via a leap of faith. Not everyone will be willing to make the leap. At which point, proposition 1 could just as easily be rephrased as: A living human body with unique DNA relative to its progenitor is proof of the presence of human tissue(s), not necessarily proof of humanity. And your three criteria would still be valid. Your criteria prove the existence of genetically unique living human tissues, but not necessarily the presence of a human being.

Whether or not the human being is present is a metaphysical discussion, not a biology lesson.

I figure, by your mention of atheists and your comment regarding DNA being measurable, that you’re trying to come up with an argument that does not rely on intangibles to make it’s point. But an atheist could still say, “you’ve made a good argument for the presence of human tissue, but until it breathes on its own, it’s no human being–just a lump of flesh.”

It seems like you’re attempting to back-engineer an understanding of the soul or the total human being into DNA. But DNA is just DNA.

Vern, I came to realize abortion was wrong because I believe that soul and body are one in the human being–and I came to believe that they come together from the moment of conception to make one human being. There would be no life at conception unless there was a soul informing that life–to believe otherwise would, to me, mean that soul and body are two separate substances. They’re not. Soul is form, body is matter–together, they’re one substance. Matter without form is, well, formless–void. Nothing. Form without matter is unexpressed.

I *didn’t *come to believe what I do now because I believe that DNA is somehow the measure of humanity. And I really wonder how anyone could, or if anyone would.

I don’t need to mention the soul to make the argunment the unborn child is fully human.

You don’t need to mention the soul to prove that the child is human tissue. And that’s what you’ve been doing with your criteria.

Very imperfectly – it is not necessary for me to adevance every possible criteria into this discussion. It is merely necessary to prove, objectively, that the unborn child is a living human being, and all else follows from that proof.

Okay. I admit it–I’m very imperfect.

Re: proving objectively that the unborn child is a human being based solely on DNA–I have yet to be convinced that its possible, or that you’ve done so.

Then you should have made it clear.

Made what clear? I should have made it clear that I wasn’t telling you what to do when it was clear I wasn’t telling you what to do?

And in what way is an example of the negligent killing babies in a box not useful to an argument that hinges on whether the thing in the box is a baby or not?

In your story, the babies are born. They’re in a cardboard box. The hunter is shooting at the box. He discovers the babies. He’s probably sad.

In the abortionist’s office, the babies are not born, and they’re in a womb. The abortionist is focusing on killing the babies. When the abortionist kills the babies and removes them, he does not discover that they’re babies–they remain, to him, just human tissue. And he’s probably not so sad.

Believe it or not, Vern, there’s a big difference between the two situations. Or so it seems to me.

If the story is about caution lest one apply lethal force to an innocent, many other stories would work as well. Again, to me the story remains general enough for me to question its particular usefulness to this specific issue. Others would do as well and make as little impact.

It is clearly the latter – it is an emotion.

Sentimentality is being “falsely emotional in a maudlin way.” I mentioned that definition (among some others, in Post 151. Sentimentality is not an emotion, it is an emotional condition.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

And there’s the trouble, Vern! Those are two different propositions that you are unwilling to make one:

1: A living human body with unique DNA relative to its progenitor is proof of humanity.
2: Humans have souls.

I fail to understanhd what “unwilling to make one” means.

You can only pass from Proposition 1 to 2 via a leap of faith.

Correct.

Not everyone will be willing to make the leap.

Which is why I don’t use it – I often debate abortion with non-Catholics and admitted athiests. My goal is not to expound doctrine, but to convince them that abortion kills a living human being.

At which point, proposition 1 could just as easily be rephrased as: A living human body with unique DNA relative to its progenitor is proof of the presence of human tissue(s), not necessarily proof of humanity.

It could be rephrased many ways – but the way you rephrase it is not valid. Re-read my proposition:

Human life is sacred.

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

 Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

 Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

 But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.

And your three criteria would still be valid. Your criteria prove the existence of genetically unique living human tissues, but not necessarily the presence of a human being.

No. The criteria taken together define a living human being.

Whether or not the human being is present is a metaphysical discussion, not a biology lesson.

Which is what supporters of abortion would like to believe. But I have demonstrated they are wrong.

I figure, by your mention of atheists and your comment regarding DNA being measurable, that you’re trying to come up with an argument that does not rely on intangibles to make it’s point. But an atheist could still say, “you’ve made a good argument for the presence of human tissue, but until it breathes on its own, it’s no human being–just a lump of flesh.”

Whereupon I wrap my hands around his throat to demonstrate the fallacy of his argument.

It seems like you’re attempting to back-engineer an understanding of the soul or the total human being into DNA. But DNA is just DNA.

That’s like saying a human brain is just a brain – and finding one lying in the street after a traffic accident is no evidence that somebody was hurt.

Vern, I came to realize abortion was wrong because I believe that soul and body are one in the human being–and I came to believe that they come together from the moment of conception to make one human being. There would be no life at conception unless there was a soul informing that life–to believe otherwise would, to me, mean that soul and body are two separate substances. They’re not. Soul is form, body is matter–together, they’re one substance. Matter without form is, well, formless–void. Nothing. Form without matter is unexpressed.

And a discussion like that will never gain assent from those who do not believe exactly as you do.

I *didn’t *come to believe what I do now because I believe that DNA is somehow the measure of humanity. And I really wonder how anyone could, or if anyone would.

Some people understand science and logic.

You don’t need to mention the soul to prove that the child is human tissue. And that’s what you’ve been doing with your criteria.

I have proven the child is a living human being, and also proved that all living human beings have a right to life – a right that is inherent to them, and not granted by any human agency.

 

[aboverubies]

Where’s the remote? :yawn:

 

[Tracyms1974]

Hello, all.

  Why compare a baby in a mother's womb to a cancer?  A baby is not an illness; quite the opposite.  And, although pregnancy can make a mother ill, it is certainly a temporary illness.  I'm pregnant now and working at a place that is not very mommy-to-be friendly simply because the tasks to be done day-to-day are for the most part are not recommended for pregnant women.  (A lot of heavy lifting.)  Still, they like me, so they are trying to give me tasks that don't require heavy lifting.  And I'm not making production.  Am I ill?  No, I prefer to think of myself as a person with limited abilities right now.  This is much different than a person who is going to DIE.  I don't plan on dying anytime soon.  So, for me, the cancer argument does not work.  I'm not ill; the baby is not ill.  Where is the similarity?

Tracy

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Hello, all.

  Why compare a baby in a mother's womb to a cancer?  A baby is not an illness; quite the opposite.  And, although pregnancy can make a mother ill, it is certainly a temporary illness.  I'm pregnant now and working at a place that is not very mommy-to-be friendly simply because the tasks to be done day-to-day are for the most part are not recommended for pregnant women.  (A lot of heavy lifting.)  Still, they like me, so they are trying to give me tasks that don't require heavy lifting.  And I'm not making production.  Am I ill?  No, I prefer to think of myself as a person with limited abilities right now.  This is much different than a person who is going to DIE.  I don't plan on dying anytime soon.  So, for me, the cancer argument does not work.  I'm not ill; the baby is not ill.  Where is the similarity?

Tracy

Thanks for your witness, Tracy! To answer your question about the bizarre connection between being pregnant and having cancer: I think it’s easier on the conscience of pro choice people to think of a pregnant woman as “ill” because then they can “cure” her of her “disease” with an abortion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hello, all.

  Why compare a baby in a mother's womb to a cancer?

It’s called sophistry – presenting a false, but seemingly valid argument in order to win a point. The point, in this case, is to dehumanize the baby so as to make killing it “a choice.”

 

[Cara_Serrano]

It’s called sophistry – presenting a false, but seemingly valid argument in order to win a point. The point, in this case, is to dehumanize the baby so as to make killing it “a choice.”

Thanks, Vern. I didn’t know it had a fancy name like “sophistry”! (At my house, we just called it “b.s.”)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thanks, Vern. I didn’t know it had a fancy name like “sophistry”! (At my house, we just called it “b.s.”)

That’s what we call it, too. Pardon me now – I have to go out and take care of the animals. I’ll leave my boots on the porch, so I don’t track b.s. into the house.