Irrefutable pro-life argument

[kimmielittle]

eh?
It does not assert that. Doctors do have an extensive knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the human body.

And Doctors can be - and often are - wrong. The title Doctor doesn’t guarantee correctness…as some would wish us to swallow.

It certainly does LOL.

Please produce the document.

You stated that my assertions have been proved wrong, yet you’re unable to furnish me with one example of this.

Without producing the document asked for above - you are wrong.

Juvenile slang? Oh dear

Seeing how I’m a kid debating you - I thought it appropriate

I didn’t furnish patients with the “body of evidence”, I advised them.

Past tense? Advising isn’t debating - without evidence your advice is merely personal opinion. Frankly, I would hold no Doctors advice - without evidence for that advice - to be based on…no higher than that of that of the fisherman’s wife.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Without producing the document asked for above - you are wrong.

er, right - and this passes for logic with you?
I haven’t seen so much twaddle in one place since I tested gelatine at Portal’s
I will sum up your post’s philosophy in one Bowdlerised saw - taurine faeces baffles brains!
I don’t think this conversation is going anyway else other than full-blown insanity do you?

 

[kimmielittle]

er, right - and this passes for logic with you?

Logic works like this: if you assert something as factual - you must produce the evidence.
It is illogical to accept personal opinion as fact.

This is logic and it’s laws at work.

I haven’t see much twaddle in one place since I tested gelatine at Portal’s

The twaddle IMHO comes from your hesitancy in not producing evidence to support your assertions

 

[LittleSoldier]

eh?
It does not assert that. Doctors do have an extensive knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the human body.

Actually most do not. The word “doctor” refers to more than those who have an M.D., D.D.S, or D.O. It also applies to those who hold PhDs, PsyDs, etc. In fact, I believe one can obtain a doctorate in the field of flower arranging in the Orient. I know one can obtain a doctorate in theology, geology, oceanography, geography, English, history, PHILOSOPHY, etc. I don’t think anyone who obtains one or more of these latter degrees would be an expert on the anatomy and physiology of the human body.

I do believe that one who has a PhD in Embryology would have the needed knowledge and probably in greater quantity and quality than a physician.

It certainly does LOL. I found it quite hilarious thinking of all the times I advocated commonsense doctrines to have the Pro-Life troopers “blast” me with Church documents saying how this was reprehensible, and now these people have gone into hiding

Are you referring to me when you say “these people have gone into hiding”? Because I haven’t. I’m still here and I still have Church documentation.

You stated that my assertions have been proved wrong, yet you’re unable to furnish me with one example of this.
Juvenile slang? Oh dear

Slang like “twaddle”?

I didn’t furnish patients with the “body of evidence”, I advised them.

So if a patient provided you with documentation about his condition, from a source recognized to be expert in the field of his particular disease and you disagreed with the conclusions of that documentation, would you simply tell the patient “Not true” and expect the patient to take you on your word alone?

I would hope not. If I trusted the words and took the advice of every physician I have seen, I would be dead now. Literally.

Yet that is what your response was when I presented Church documentation regarding life-saving measures on a pregnant woman which result in the loss of her unborn child.



*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[Doc_Keele]

So if a patient provided you with documentation about his condition, from a source recognized to be expert in the field of his particular disease and you disagreed with the conclusions of that documentation, would you simply tell the patient “Not true” and expect the patient to take you on your word alone?

No, of course not - every patient is an individual.

Are you referring to me when you say “these people have gone into hiding”? Because I haven’t. I’m still here and I still have Church documentation

No, not referring you at all LS

 

[Doc_Keele]

kimmielittle - my last post to you because you just don’t understand formal argument…
unproven and untrue are totally different
should be simple enough for even you to understand:thumbsup:

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, of course not - every patient is an individual.

No, not referring you at all LS

I edited my post. You might want to read it, although you’ve responded to the most important parts.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[kimmielittle]

kimmielittle - my last post to you because you just don’t understand formal argument…
unproven and untrue are totally different
should be simple enough for even you to understand:thumbsup:

Awwwww “should be simple enough for even you to understand” ]

Actually, unproven assertions can be and oft times ARE untruths.

You asserted that the Catholic Church forbids an abortion to save the life of the Mother - untrue and unproven.

 

[Doc_Keele]

PS Twaddle is actually a technical term, I was indulging in a bit of insider humour from my time working in the security paper industry

 

[flyingfish]

The immigration policies of every country should reflect what is inscribed on that pedestal.

I would like to introduce into this thread a term which is looked upon as archaic by many Americans today - the term is “melting pot.” The USA is not a melting pot - it is a “salad bowl.” Immigrants from different countries bring their customs, their music, their food, their values to the USA and all of these should be accepted (they often improve the immigrants’ newly adopted country) as long as they do not interfere with the freedoms and values bestowed upon all human beings simply by virtue of their being human beings.

Such as the right to life of every human being.

I’m an immigrant myself and I live in Canada. Canada is pretty selective when it comes to immigration, the only reason my family was able to come is that both my parents were highly educated professionals.

I’m not saying immigrants should abandon their food or music or culture, those are fun and harmless. But if you’re bringing in refugees from places like Somalia and allow family reunification, why would you be surprised if they end up wanting Sharia, if you see a rise in honor killings etc.?

These kinds of issues can be dealt with by preselecting immigrants so that you don’t end up bringing in people who want those kinds of things. Problem solved.

 

[flyingfish]

This sort of statement is what makes your position so absolutely horrifying. You actually think it’s morally acceptable to allow a newborn infant to die. I’m not concerned with the circumstances. My concern is your absolute lack of respect for human life.

Suppose the parents don’t want the newborn, no one wants to adopt the newborn, and the state has no money to feed the newborn.

Say there is a famine, and no one has extra food to give to the newborn.

What would you do? Force someone to go hungry to provide for it?

By the way, if the society as a whole is rich, and if the government has the money to sustain the newborn I think that’s what should be done (unless the country is overpopulated, and additional people would be a negative rather than a positive).

I don’t see a problem with this because I don’t think the newborn is self aware, and I don’t think a person exists yet. I would not say the same about an older child who was self aware.

I really would like to know what you think of an elderly person who needs extensive medical care to remain alive and out of pain. Do you think it’s OK to starve this person to death if nobody in the world wants to feed her?

Actually I believe in socialized universal healthcare for all persons Except should there be something like a famine or a drastic resource shortage, then yes, there wouldn’t be enough services for everyone.

You bring in concepts like value to the parents or that the mother can just give the baby away, which has nothing to do with self-awareness.

I don’t see why you have such a problem with this. A newborn that is not self aware can be viewed as valuable property of its parents. Most parents would probably value their newborn above adult strangers, and it makes perfect sense that they should.

I value my house above adult strangers, and I would not sell my house so that I could use the money to save the lives of starving people in the third world. I’d rather have the house (and frankly so would you, or you would have sold it, disconnected your internet, and used that money to provide for others).

There are also many couples in society who desperately want babies and can’t have their own. I think it makes sense to make laws that unwanted newborns should go to these couples rather than killed.

 

[csuliman]

I agree with you. Strangely enough, there are some on the pro-choice who also agree with you, to the point of acknowledging that in abortion, a unique living human being is destroyed. They still support abortion as a mother’s choice.

In legal terms, it is not necessary to establish a biological point of development in order to determine whether a human is a person with rights. This can be done relatively arbitrary- i.e to say they have such right at birth. However, it is equally valid, from a legal viewpoint, to say that it is at a certain level of brain development, or on a certain trimester. Basically- it does not necessarily follow, as a law of nature, that a human being has these rights at a specific point of development.

I do not think that anyone questions whether a biological human being is being destroyed at abortion. Rather, the pro-choice persons would argue that merely being a human being from a biological point of view is not sufficient, there must be either consciousness or independence from the mother.

 

[Des]

I honestly don’t understand why you have this issue with discrete systems.

Sorry but that won’t work here unless you seriously figure a severely mentally handicapped person has the exact same degree of self awareness the average human being holds to. As I said before, the development of self awareness doesn’t just jump from nothingness to a perfect being with perfect self awareness.

So again, self awareness isn’t what makes someone a human being or if I wish, I shall also throw my own theory into this unholy mix and say even when one sleeps, and becomes less self aware between intervals throughout the night, that he would similarly be dropping in and out of his ‘human being status’ making it very moral for anyone of us to kill him during those specific time frames.

 

[flyingfish]

Sorry but that won’t work here unless you seriously figure a severely mentally handicapped person has the exact same degree of self awareness the average human being holds to. As I said before, the development of self awareness doesn’t just jump from nothingness to a perfect being with perfect self awareness.

So again, self awareness isn’t what makes someone a human being or if I wish, I shall also throw my own theory into this unholy mix and say even when one sleeps, and becomes less self aware between intervals throughout the night, that he would similarly be dropping in and out of his ‘human being status’ making it very moral for anyone of us to kill him during those specific time frames.

I’m not saying the development of self awareness jumps from nothing to perfect self awareness. When did I say that?

I said that it is my choice to define personhood when self awareness, however small, is present. I certainly can choose to think if personhood this way if I please. There are no logical inconsistencies.

You seem to have some fundamental mental block when it comes to discrete systems, I don’t know why you have it, I don’t have it.

 

[Des]

I said that it is my choice to define personhood when self awareness, however small, is present. I certainly can choose to think if personhood this way if I please. There are no logical inconsistencies

I disagree since it’s all about growing into your self awareness creating that scale of 0 - 100 I was talking about. One can’t logically suggest a human being should begin with an imperfect self awareness and then not expect another to continue to suggest his own self awareness criteria against yours.

You seem to have some fundamental mental block when it comes to discrete systems, I don’t know why you have it, I don’t have it.

Not at all. On the contrary, it’s you who I feel has the mental block taking into account the entire growth period of a human being from start to finish. You want to ignore it’s beginnings a single human person starting with a zygote cell and insert some terminology on it that doesn’t apply to organisms with their full potential already designed into their gene code. Being human is aways going to be have inconsistencies in our self awareness like the example I gave when we are asleep when we don’t have it. So basically, your discrete system theory can’t work in humans where everything is already pre-programed into a Zygote cell. You strip away it’s entire humanity by making rules derived from a certain point of development. Heck, I could say the discreet system theory then can likewise be equated with one becoming a full human being not only when he has self awareness but 5 fingers, or two feet or two eyes or a heart or a brain or all of the above. It can go on and on and is surely not the way to go about it.

 

[flyingfish]

I disagree since it’s all about growing into your self awareness creating that scale of 0 - 100 I was talking about. One can’t logically suggest a human being should begin with an imperfect self awareness and then not expect another to continue to suggest his own self awareness criteria against yours.

Okay, I think self awareness is on a scale. But I don’t think personhood is. I think an organism is either a person or it’s not.

Once a human hits a certain level of development, it becomes a person. Until then, it’s not a person.

For me this level of development is the beginning of self awareness (yes self awareness starts out at nothing, then moves to a low level, and eventually develops to the max for that individual). I think the first moment of self awareness is when a human becomes a person. (And yes, there is such a moment. Time, as well as everything else in the universe, is discrete rather than continuous.)

I don’t see why you think I’m ignoring the growth period of a human being. Yes human beings start as fertilized eggs, grow into fetuses, grow into babies, grow into children, teenagers adults. At a certain point in the growth of a human it develops self awareness and becomes a person, this is when I think it makes sense to talk about it in terms of rights. Not until then.

I don’t see why you have such trouble understanding what I think. I’m not saying you should agree with me, you obviously don’t. But I think I explained my position clearly.

 

[Des]

I don’t see why you have such trouble understanding what I think.

Because I look at the entire picture and not just a piece of it.

Honestly, you’ve said some pretty horrific things on here that even the average pro abortion advocate would object to.

 

[adriancombe]

Okay, I think self awareness is on a scale. But I don’t think personhood is. I think an organism is either a person or it’s not.

Once a human hits a certain level of development, it becomes a person. Until then, it’s not a person.

For me this level of development is the beginning of self awareness (yes self awareness starts out at nothing, then moves to a low level, and eventually develops to the max for that individual). I think the first moment of self awareness is when a human becomes a person. (And yes, there is such a moment. Time, as well as everything else in the universe, is discrete rather than continuous.)

I don’t see why you think I’m ignoring the growth period of a human being. Yes human beings start as fertilized eggs, grow into fetuses, grow into babies, grow into children, teenagers adults. At a certain point in the growth of a human it develops self awareness and becomes a person, this is when I think it makes sense to talk about it in terms of rights. Not until then.

I don’t see why you have such trouble understanding what I think. I’m not saying you should agree with me, you obviously don’t. But I think I explained my position clearly.

I do understand what you think. But I still think it boils down to the uncertainty principle.

You are not certain when consciousness begins.

You are not certain when personhood begins.

You aren’t even certain your criteria for personhood are valid. And since humans in comas are still considered persons, there is reason to question your criteria.

I still don’t see where you (or anyone) has refuted the idea that procured abortion is no better than the hunter shooting into the bush, hoping whatever is back there is not a perso.

 

[flyingfish]

I still don’t see where you (or anyone) has refuted the idea that procured abortion is no better than the hunter shooting into the bush, hoping whatever is back there is not a perso.

Well, if you’re a hunter it’s possible that when you’re aiming straight at a deer you’re actually hallucinating and aiming at a person. Yet a hunter would still trust his observations, assume it’s a deer, and shoot it.

Everything we know about fetuses tells us they are not self aware, and in fact newborns only become self aware later in life. I don’t see why we should hurt women who we definitely know are thinking, self aware beings for the sake of fetuses who we know aren’t.

With babies displaying self awareness in the mirror test at 18 months after birth, there is a huge margin of error if you’re having an abortion in the first trimester, which is when the vast majority of elective abortions are done anyway.

 

[adriancombe]

Well, if you’re a hunter it’s possible that when you’re aiming straight at a deer you’re actually hallucinating and aiming at a person. Yet a hunter would still trust his observations, assume it’s a deer, and shoot it.

Everything we know about fetuses tells us they are not self aware, and in fact newborns only become self aware later in life. I don’t see why we should hurt women who we definitely know are thinking, self aware beings for the sake of fetuses who we know aren’t.

With babies displaying self awareness in the mirror test at 18 months after birth, there is a huge margin of error if you’re having an abortion in the first trimester, which is when the vast majority of elective abortions are done anyway.

No, the original post dealt with an unseen mover in the bush. There was no question of thinking one saw a deer or hallucinating.

It’s not true that “Everything we know about fetuses tells us they are not self aware”. The mirror test is highly imperfect for reasons already stated by others on this list. And research into fetal memories indicates they start very early (see my earlier posts).

The traditions represented by the religions held by the majority of humans forbid abortion. As already stated by others, even governments that permit abortion (like the U.S.) punish those who kill a pregnant woman for TWO murders. This is true without regard for the number of weeks of pregnancy. There is more than enough evidence that a reasonable atheist or agnostic or otherwise ‘pro-choice’ individual should admit uncertainty as to whether the preborn is a self-aware person, and when this starts.

And in case you think it escaped my notice: you still don’t have certainty regarding the validity of your criteria.