I need help

[jayb76]

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

Logic for Pro Choice:

A. Abortion does not kill a human being.

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.
   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.
   II. Let a being constitute any organism that exists, and let the subject be moot.
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.
   I. Let personhood refer to the moment in which a human organism can leave the parasitic stage of development.
   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.”
   i. Let the term “directly” refer to any sustenance that is obtained bodily. Directly does not refer to indirect sustainment.
   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.
   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.
   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.
   III. Let “alive” be drawn from the medical definition of human death.
   a. The medical definition of death is defined as: “the moment in which it is impossible to detect brain waves in a human organism.”
   b. From “a”, let “alive” refer to the moment that brain waves can be detected in a (human) organism.
3. Let “abortion” refer to the medical procedure intended to terminate a pregnancy.
   I. Let “terminate a pregnancy” be defined as killing any organism that is within a woman’s uterus, specifically an unborn organism.
   II. Let an unborn organism be defined as any human organism that has yet to obtain personhood through the definition of personhood above.
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.
   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.
5. Let “moral obligation” refer to the obligation of society to make the practice of abortion illegal outside the scope of its definition.
6. 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 appreaciate your time and help. May the Risen Christ Bless all of you with new life.

 

[praxising]

1. Let yourself be freed of this debate from someone who is simply in love with how smart he is. He is not interested in the topic, he is interested in controlling you. Walk away.

But just FYI, a fetus has a complete set of “brainwaves” on an EEG at around three months. You need to research that, I’m going from memory, but it’s very early.

And one more thing, when an infant receives all it’s nourishment from nursing, thereby “draining” from the “host,” does this mean we can still kill it?

He’s about 16, this guy?

 

[curlycool89]

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

Logic for Pro Choice:

A. Abortion does not kill a human being.

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.
   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.
   II. Let a being constitute any organism that exists, and let the subject be moot.
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.
   I. Let personhood refer to the moment in which a human organism can leave the parasitic stage of development.
   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.”
   i. Let the term “directly” refer to any sustenance that is obtained bodily. Directly does not refer to indirect sustainment.
   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.
   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.
   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.
   III. Let “alive” be drawn from the medical definition of human death.
   a. The medical definition of death is defined as: “the moment in which it is impossible to detect brain waves in a human organism.”
   b. From “a”, let “alive” refer to the moment that brain waves can be detected in a (human) organism.
3. Let “abortion” refer to the medical procedure intended to terminate a pregnancy.
   I. Let “terminate a pregnancy” be defined as killing any organism that is within a woman’s uterus, specifically an unborn organism.
   II. Let an unborn organism be defined as any human organism that has yet to obtain personhood through the definition of personhood above.
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.
   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.
5. Let “moral obligation” refer to the obligation of society to make the practice of abortion illegal outside the scope of its definition.
6. 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 appreaciate your time and help. May the Risen Christ Bless all of you with new life.

That’s the weak link. There is no need to define a “personhood”, and the definition is laughably arbitrary. “Parasite” has been arbitrarily gutted down so as to exclude embarrassing ramifications such as the fact that even after birth a human baby is completely dependent on outside care, and therefore could still be classified as a “parasite”. There is no consistency, as the various steps have been carefully crafted in order to serve the ends. His bias very much shows.

Essentially, what he’s done is manipulate the definitions to suit his opinion. At that point it’s no longer philosophy, it’s politics. Actually, it’s politics masquerading as philosophy because it gives an “air of authority” to the argument. Just call BS BS.

A much easier philosophical argument is:

1. It’s a human being when it’s born.
2. Organisms can’t change their species as it’s a biological impossibility (species is set out as soon as it’s a new life, ie at conception).
3. Therefore, the baby is also a human being when pre-born, and since the only thing that happens during the “pre-born” stage is growth (similar to growing from an infant to a child to a teenager), it is a human being the entire time.
4. Killing human beings is wrong (and if they want to argue this one, this is the time to suggest a good psychiatrist).

 

[_L]

There is only so far as you can go with debating people like this, it may come down to an irreconcilable disagreement over person hood. I think it is completely illogical to think that person hood and life do not coincide with one another. You might want to bring this up to him, ask him this question: “When does a human being cease to be a person?” The answer to this question is at death, so logically would it not make sense that you become a person when your life begins? Theologically speaking, you become a person when the soul and body come together, which as at the beginning of life at conception, and you cease to be a human person when your soul is separated from your body, that is when your life ends. Being alive makes you a person, and not any arbitrary opinions on viability and consciousness. person hood resides with only one creature, and that is human, your very existence as a human necessitates person hood. There is no separating the two, and they only reason people separate the two is to justify euthanasia and abortion.

Hope some of these points helped.

 

[Nelka]

Remember…

A woman can choose what she wants to do with her body but the baby inside of her is not part of her body, it is inside her body.

If she wants to cut her arms, legs or anything else off it is her choice but the baby would never choose death over life.

Abortion is murder.

Look at the pictures of abortion, do they look like cells or babies?

 

[thirddec]

SEVERE WARNING DO NOT OPEN LINK IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A STRONG STOMACH

dailymotion.com/video/x68xtg_abortions_news

Stop talking just ask him to watch this and tell him you do not want to discuss it anymore.
Then spend the time you have wasted arguing with him about it by saying the Rosary and offer it up for all the victims of Abortion including the poor deluded girls themselves.

 

[jilly4ski]

Remember…

A woman can choose what she wants to do with her body but the baby inside of her is not part of her body, it is inside her body.

If she wants to cut her arms, legs or anything else off it is her choice but the baby would never choose death over life.

Abortion is murder.

Look at the pictures of abortion, do they look like cells or babies?

Actually there are people who want to cut off their arms and legs. These people are considered mentally unstable and are treated and are not allowed to cut off their members. Double standards huh, So you can kill a baby growing inside of you but we as a society won’t let you cut off limbs that you don’t believe belong.

Oh and a baby cannot be a parasite, because it was meant to be there. Meaning that a woman’s body is designed and fosters the growth of an baby (in the womb and outside of the womb). The baby is exactly where it is supposed to be, in the reproductive organs, which are there for reproduction. Your body doesn’t go through changes to make it more hospitable for leeches and tape worms. People who say babies are parasites are either ignorant of biology, or ignoring the fact that babies are natural and the species would die out if we all freed ourselves from our parasites, or both

 

[Monte_RCMS]

… is a parasite by the definition of a parasite, which is the following: “any organism that sustains itself directly from another organism.”

May not be a helpful definition … a lot of things may fit that definition.

Other conditions may also have to be present for something to be a parasite … suggestion: cause damage to the host.

Otherwise, a government employee might be considered to be a parasite … e.g., non-essential personnel can stay home on a snow day …

 

[Barbkw]

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

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

1. Let yourself be freed of this debate from someone who is simply in love with how smart he is. He is not interested in the topic, he is interested in controlling you. Walk away.

That is so true. Knowing where you can change hearts and where you can only leave seeds and hope they grow is an important life lesson.

 

[jesuspsr]

Your friend sound deluded, I will pray for him.
God bless

jesus g

 

[eagle_eye222001]

That’s the weak link. There is no need to define a “personhood”, and the definition is laughably arbitrary. “Parasite” has been arbitrarily gutted down so as to exclude embarrassing ramifications such as the fact that even after birth a human baby is completely dependent on outside care…

Solid point. Dependency on someone or something cannot be in of itself a qualification on whether something is a human being.

Seems many here offer sage advice. I would contest the debate a bit further…however prepare yourself to walk away if he does not address your points or you see the conversation going in a circle. Many people are deep-rooted and will never admit failure even if it broke into their house and burned it down.

Philosophy can be a good tool to discover the truth…just point out that it can rightly be misused to arrive at pre-determined answers. The parameters we make determine our answer.

---

Do not lose hope or be discouraged! We cannot convert the world…that is for the Holy Spirit…we can only hope to plant seeds and to offer ourselves as visible signs of God’s Truth.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

Logic for Pro Choice:

A. Abortion does not kill a human being.

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.
   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.
   II. Let a being constitute any organism that exists, and let the subject be moot.
   <<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.>>

This is where he, and many besides, stumble. Lets examine the support for the statement, shall we?

I. Let personhood refer to the moment in which a human organism can leave the parasitic stage of development.
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.”
i. Let the term “directly” refer to any sustenance that is obtained bodily. Directly does not refer to indirect sustainment.
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.
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.

The baby is a parasite, by his definition, until long past birth. His “direct” versus “indirect” sustenance is arbitrary in this case. The difference between sustaining an child in utero and nursing is not the child’s need, or the mother’s capability of providing. It is not, as he seems to say, whether or not it “drains” the mother of essential nutrition- as both will. (A mother needs to eat a lot more- around 500 calories more- while nursing.) He means external versus internal sustenance, but he cannot say so. Geography surely cannot define personhood.

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.

I am glad he allows that it is a human organism. This becomes important shortly. Still, he has not, yet, made the case which he asserts here, by definition, that a fetus is has not achieved personhood.

III. Let “alive” be drawn from the medical definition of human death.
a. The medical definition of death is defined as: “the moment in which it is impossible to detect brain waves in a human organism.”
b. From “a”, let “alive” refer to the moment that brain waves can be detected in a (human) organism.

I told you it would be important. What is the manner of this human organism, the fetus? Dead. Miracles abound!! He must be a Christian that he believes in resurrection! Every human life began dead and arose!

You cannot define a thing by its negative opposite. You may be able, for instance, to define darkness as the absence of light. You cannot define light as the absence of darkness, at least not sensibly. You have provided a description, but not a definition. Life, likewise, cannot be defined as the opposite of death.

1. Let “abortion” refer to the medical procedure intended to terminate a pregnancy.
   I. Let “terminate a pregnancy” be defined as killing any organism that is within a woman’s uterus, specifically an unborn organism.

Whoops. He does not believe the fetus is dead. Personhood is the hook that most pro-abortion apologists hang their hat on. As we move past that, which the rest of his argument hinges on, you must keep in mind that that is the very argument which was not made above. Also, here we find his first self-contradiction.

II. Let an unborn organism be defined as any human organism that has yet to obtain personhood through the definition of personhood above.

Repetitive, but also not proven. If you assume your conclusion, your argument is circular.

1. 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.

Repetitive, but also not proven. If you assume your conclusion, your argument is circular. Maybe I should not rail against being repetitive.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

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.

I answer that, (tee-hee) He has not yet made the case that the death of a human being has not occurred. He tried to make the case that the death of a dead, non-person, human organism occurred. He was not successful, as I believe can be easily shown.

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 am curious what could be out of the scope of morally permissible abortion, is this view. But I will let it alone. Cumbersome language.

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.”

Someone needs to consult a law dictionary. Killing a human being is not always murder. Murder has a very specific definition in law. Abortion certainly qualifies, but this shows again the looseness of his preferred definitions.

b. Let murder not refer to the killing of any being that is not a human being, as per its definition.

It will not. If you murder my cat, law will hold you accountable for a different crime.

The intellectual rigor with which he has approached the debate leaves something to be desired. Consistency perhaps? Or at the very least, a commitment to the terms he laid out. He assumes, but cannot prove, his notion of personhood. That is, truly, what this comes down to. You likely cannot prove him wrong either. Personhood and life are not easily defined and they are usually the heart of the emotion driven debate.

 

[Nelka]

Actually there are people who want to cut off their arms and legs. These people are considered mentally unstable and are treated and are not allowed to cut off their members. Double standards huh, So you can kill a baby growing inside of you but we as a society won’t let you cut off limbs that you don’t believe belong.

Oh and a baby cannot be a parasite, because it was meant to be there. Meaning that a woman’s body is designed and fosters the growth of an baby (in the womb and outside of the womb). The baby is exactly where it is supposed to be, in the reproductive organs, which are there for reproduction. Your body doesn’t go through changes to make it more hospitable for leeches and tape worms. People who say babies are parasites are either ignorant of biology, or ignoring the fact that babies are natural and the species would die out if we all freed ourselves from our parasites, or both

Where did I say a baby was a parasite?

 

[jilly4ski]

Where did I say a baby was a parasite?

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…).

 

[thirddec]

I read a quote from Abraham Lincoln lately that so fits all this nonsence

**If we call a tail a leg then how many legs does a dog have ?

4 of course ; just because we call a tail a leg does not make it a leg.**

This arguements does a lot of calling somethings with no evidence to substantiate anything sometimes not even the meagre understandings of science at the moment.

All i know is that if a woman in a stage of pregnancy goes in one clinic she will be told how baby is doing if she plans to take it to birth yet if she were not and planning an abortion the discussion if it wasn’t avoided would be about the foetus. Lets call it one thing or another and at least that would be honest.

Imagine the potential conversations;

Well madam your foetus is doing really well; its kicking and responding to sounds ; it will be recognising your voice now.

Ok madam we will be using the forcepts method of terminating your baby.

Lets not name murder anything else but murder

Lets not call the failure to protect and cherish the most vulnerable anything other than the failure to protect and cherish the most vulnerable.

When I eat a lamb chop ; I wont redefine it or wont fail to acknowledge the slaughter house; I am honest.

Science is now discovering that individual human organs have memories; Science is now exploring the Hologram theory of the Universe and also the same theory seems to explain some of how the brain works. Science is now contemplating even quietly that the brain could be a quantum computer or even a quantam computer that links to a super quantum computer and at that level of thought putting both theories together even a single cell may contain the whole of a personality as the personality may be stored elsewhere and we just act as recievers. I don’t necessary know or care how much of this is true or false but the point I’m making is how science Theories and facts are never absolute so anyone commiting an abortion can and never will be sure of what they are killing .

Dehumanising what you are planning to kill is standard practice.

Call abortion what you want but it doesn’t change the inhumanity of the whole thing

 

[jayb76]

Hey guys thank you so much for the time to answer and help me out with this guy I’m debating. You’re right, the guy is basically lost in his world of philosophy. Here are some of his eccentric and over the top rebuttals.

<<I’m glad you’ve conceded on the idea of personhood, but not on the idea of a human being. The concept of “human being” is indeed a philosophical concept; you’ve mixed up the concept of “human being” and “of human.” Biology can tell you that a flower is “of plant,” but it cannot tell you that a flower is an object of which to give to your girlfriend on anniversary celebrations. Biology can only tell you what “of human” is, it cannot make sense of the concept “of human” outside of its intended scope (biology). A gardener cannot tell you what tree to place in your garden to make it look nice; he can, however, teach you what a tree is and how to take care of one (et cetera). We don’t need to philosophize to say a rock is a rock, but we do have to philosophize if we go any further than the basic chemical composition of the rock, i.e., if we muse over the importance of the rock or of the possible functionality of the rock as a weapon (or if it should be used as a weapon, et cetera).>>

<<I’m aware that this is a difficult concept to comprehend, but I ask that you truly look at it with an unbiased opinion. A fetus, before personhood, does not have “human being” status, only “human” (which is “of human,” of course) status. Nothing is holding me back from the truth; however, you seem to be clinging to your own ideals in a closed minded fashion rather than looking at this argument objectively. A fetus is “human,” which of course means “of human,” as I’ve stated many times before. The fetus is a “potential human,” which is the noun form of “human,” which is thus referring to the idea of a “human being.” Thus, a potential human is a potential human being. I resent the idea of my ideas “see-sawing all over the place;” I ask that you reread the outline if you still cannot understand the difference between “of human” (human in adjective form) and “a human being” (human in noun form).>>

<<You stated “a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)”
There is an obvious problem with this definition: it provides a level of specificity that excludes situations that may exist outside of the definition provided. For example, what is an organism that is metabolically dependant on the host but homospecific in its relationship to the host, if not a parasite? Under this definition, it must be excluded. We’d find the same problem if we defined a human being as a “member of homo sapiens that is capable of higher level thought processes and bipedal motion.” What if we are given a situation in which only part of the definition is met; how do we define a person in a comatose state, or an amputee? Definitions must be contextually relative and appropriate for the greater availability of situations; in a word, a definition is a better definition if it incorporates the broadest scope within reason (one cannot make the claim that “eyes” are the distinguishing feature of human, even if it is true that humans have eyes, because other organisms are not accounted for). Therefore, the definition you’ve provided is less accurate than mine, because mine is less specific, applies to all parasitic situations, and isn’t limited by semantics.>>

He obviously is a maverick philosopher who only uses science when it benefits his own thinking and rejects it when it doesn’t. He says that only philosophers not biologists or scientists can define the species. Human being and person are philosophical concepts not scientific ones. This is a really lopsided narrowminded approach, I mean everyone knows that a balanced approached to this is what is important and efficient.

 

[jesuspsr]

In the words of Pilot; I wash my hands; (my words now) from this delusional man.:choocho:

jesus g

 

[caoindealbhan]

Though he is a thinking and rational man, i believe he is arriving at some wrong conclusions. It is a human being from the moment it is conceived. It can’t become anything else.

The larger question is, why is his opinion so important? Are you contemplating putting yourself into a situation where an abortion might be considered an option? As a parent, I would warn you that pre-marital sex comes with potential dangers. However, if you find yourself pregnant please don’t let anyone convince you that the situation can be rectified with an abortion. it has been proven that women long for that child and regret what they had done for the rest of their life. There is some bond created at conception. If you were my daughter, and you found yourself with an unwanted pregnancy, I would welcome you home. We would prepare for the birth of a child. The question of marrying the man rests on whether there is any love between the two of you. You don’t marry someone to fulfill an obligation or because ideally it is the “right thing to do.” Many single women have been most successful at raising children alone.