I need help

[Nelka]

I think you misunderstood. I was agreeing with you in the first paragraph and in the second paragraph I was responding to the OP. I am sorry if I caused a misunderstanding. Though this is a internet forum, you should learn to take things less personally, if it doesn’t appear to apply to you (new paragraph discussing something you didn’t say…).

My apologies Jilly.

 

[jilly4ski]

My apologies Jilly.

No problem.

 

[Siochan_Leat]

This “philosopher’s” attitude is beyond disgusting - all of his conclusions are mental gymnastics constructed to absolve himself of his own sins.

I completely agree. I think this is one of those times when you should just agree to disagree and walk away. I’d also suggest praying for this person’s soul. He is going to need all the help he can get.

 

[William_of_Ware]

Do not debate him.

This is a moral issue, not an intellectual one. The fact that you’re arguing him about this issue signals you’re already conceding that the issue of abortion is debatable and worth discussing.
Do not give him even him that much.

It might even hurt mentally or spiritually you in the long run.

Just tell like it is, abortion is a horrendous form of murder, that he is evil for accepting it and that he abuses philosophy to rationalize infanticide, leave it at that and pray for him.

This issue of walking away from immoral polemicists was explained by an excellent catholic philosopher named Edward Feser, edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/06/can-philosophy-be-polemical.html

bear in mind that he starts talking of what I said halfway through the article.

we’ll keep you in our prayers.

 

[promethius]

Hello everyone,

I’ve been debating this so called pro-choice philosopher for months now and he seems to be so obsessed with philosophy being the answer to everything. I don’t know if someone can help me out. I’ve done what I could to point out the major fallacies in his thinking but he still truly believes that his positions are more logical. Here is his position in a nutshell

Okay, let’s destroy this puppy. First and foremost, you can point out that he’s constructed his syllogisms in a terrible format in terms of debating them.

-]Logic/-]Dishonesty for Pro Choice:

A. Abortion does not kill a human being.
I’m assuming by A he means Assertion…

**1. A human being is partially defined as a “being” that is human. By the word “human,” I of course mean “of human,” as in the definition of the species. **
Okay, we can agree to this.

I. Let the definition of the human species be defined as any organism that possesses human DNA. Assume the subject of what constitutes human DNA is moot.
I can even agree to this.

II. Let a being constitute any organism that exists, and let the subject be moot.
Sure. So we’ve shown that a fetus is of the human species and is a being, ergo it is a human being. At least he’s willing to admit this…

2. A human being is partially defined as an organism that is alive and “human,” as demonstrated above, that has distinct “personhood” attributed to it.
WHOA! Slow down. He’s begged the question here. Where in the world did we ever agree that it has to have “personhood” attributed to it???

I. Let personhood refer to the moment in which a human organism can leave the parasitic stage of development.
Human beings do not have a “parasitic” stage of development… So we cannot let personhood refer to the end of this non-existant stage.

a. The fetus is a parasite by the definition of a parasite, which is the following: “any organism that sustains itself directly from another organism.”
Actually, the definition of a parasite is "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." You would be hard pressed to find a biologist describe a fetus as ever being a parasite.

**i. Let the term “directly” refer to any sustenance that is obtained bodily. Directly does not refer to indirect sustainment. **
No. I disagree because the definition of a parasite makes no such differentiation.

ii. Let indirect sustainment refer to any sort of caring, mothering, nursing, or any sort of care that is external of draining nutrients directly off of a host organism, and distinct oppose from what direct sustainment would entail.
A woman nursing an infant is no different than a mosquito sucking blood through your skin. However, a mosquito is a parasite and a baby is not, even by the arguer’s desire because he realizes that this arguement he’s giving could be used to murder infants (the born). It’s a cop-out based on the fact that he has inappropriately redefined the term parasite

**b. The mother of a fetus is a host by the definition of a host, which is the following: “any organism whose nutrients are directly drained by another organism.” Let the term “directly” be defined as above. **
Again, in biology terms this would refer to one species being drained by another.

 

[promethius]

II. Let a fetus, or any previous/later stage before personhood, be defined as a human organism without personhood by definition of what a “human” organism is and what “personhood” entails.
No, because I still reject utterly his definition of personhood. I likewise reject the notion that human right to life is based on “personhood”

III. Let “alive” be drawn from the medical definition of human death.
Okee dokee.

a. The medical definition of death is defined as: “the moment in which it is impossible to detect brain waves in a human organism.”
Actually, the definition of death is “the irreversible cessation of all vital functions especially as indicated by permanent stoppage of the heart, respiration, and brain activity **: **the end of life.” So we can see that there is a problem here… what are the vital functions of a bacteria? It has no brain, heart, or respiration system… but it most certainly can DIE. A fetus doesn’t need to have brainwave to cease vital functions such as cellular regeneration/duplication, metabolic processes, etc.

**b. From “a”, let “alive” refer to the moment that brain waves can be detected in a (human) organism. **
No. He is again trying to redefine what he meant by “human being” and which we agreed to above.

3. Let “abortion” refer to the medical procedure intended to terminate a pregnancy.
I prefer to let abortion refer to the brutal practice of murdering children in their mothers’ wombs…

I. Let “terminate a pregnancy” be defined as killing any organism that is within a woman’s uterus, specifically an unborn organism.
A woman with a uterus infection has a parasitic bacteria in her uterus. She is not pregnant and taking anti-biotics for this condition is not an abortion. Abortion and terminating a pregnancy can thus only apply to killing a human being within the uterus.

II. Let an unborn organism be defined as any human organism that has yet to obtain personhood through the definition of personhood above.
No, because I rejected that definition of personhood, or that it is even required to recognize that someone is a human being and alive.

4. Because a fetus (or unborn organism) does not meet the definition of a “human being” because of the fact that it has not received personhood, the killing of a fetus does not result in the death of a human being; rather, in the death of a human organism.
Oh no, we agreed way back in 1 that a fetus is a human being. Somewhere along the way he injected the idea of personhood as a requirement… something we never agreed to and something which he has defined totally incorrectly.

B. Because abortion does not result in the death of a human being, let there be no moral obligation for society to condemn the act of abortion.
But by our agreed terms that a human refers to “of the human species” and a being is “any organism” then a fetus IS a human being.

**-] **1. Let “moral obligation” refer to the obligation of society to make the practice of abortion illegal outside the scope of its definition.****/-]-]
2. Let any abortion performed outside of its intended scope be condemned as the death of a human being.
I. Let the intended scope of abortion refer to its definition.
II. Let any abortion outside its scope be punishable for the crime of murder.
a. Let murder refer to the legal definition: “to kill a human being.”
b. Let murder not refer to the killing of any being that is not a human being, as per its definition./-]
I’m not going to bother responding to this end part because it’s all just garbage he tacked on the end to make his argument longer and give it an appearance of more credibility.

Let’s go with a proper syllogism then:
Given mutual definition “human” as having to do with the human species and “being” as any organism that is alive (by scientific definition)

A 1) A fetus is of the human species
A 2) Those of the Human Species are Human
Conclusion: A fetus is Human

A 1) A fetus is an organism that is alive
A 2) An organism that is alive is a being
Conclusion) A fetus is a being

QED: A fetus is a human being

A 1) All human beings have a right to live their full natural life (we’ll beg this question on the basis that John Locke’s philosophy here is the basis of American life)
A 2) A fetus is a human being
Conclusion: A fetus has a right to live it’s full natural life.

That’s it, we don’t need to go into any more detail than that. As soon as we agree that it’s a human being the right to life automatically drops out of the mix and into the open.