Irrefutable pro-life argument

[kimmielittle]

Did you not understand my answer? Because if you did, there’s absolutely no need to keep repeating myself. If you didn’t understand my answer, then admit it instead of claiming I haven’t answered. It’s dishonest.

I admit it
Now please answer with a yes or no - does legality outweigh morality?

The great part of being a kid - my ego doesn’t bruise easy ]

 

[Doc_Keele]

OK - we can make progress.
Does legality outweigh morality?
They are two different concepts - you might as well say does history outweigh geography:shrug:
The law has no necessary moral content. There are illegal things which are moral, and legal things that are immoral. Legality has no bearing on whether something is moral or not - as LS has said if a law is immoral we are obliged to oppose it.

So legality certainly doesn’t dictate morality or override it. You don’t need to be Catholic or even Christian to agree with that.

Does all that make sense?

NB: descriptive = “is”
normative = “ought”

 

[adriancombe]

if that’s your attitude…

So, since you have yet to do so, or specify in which post you did so, you accept the argument of the OP as irrefutable?

 

[LittleSoldier]

IMHO, your debate skills are something I’d expect from a kid that doesn’t know how to present their views well.

Your *ad hominem *on me, doesn’t diminish my points - or any other posters here, who have constantly asked you for direct answers to your statements and assertions.

We each have a right to voice our personal opinions - we do not have the right to assert them as factual - unless we are willing to backup those assertions.

I hope this helps

:clapping: (hmmm, this emoticon wears gloves. That looks weird.)

 

[Doc_Keele]

So, since you have yet to do so, or specify in which post you did so, you accept the argument of the OP as irrefutable?

No. For one thing, I don’t believe an inductive argument can ever be classified as irrefutable.

 

[kimmielittle]

OK - we can make progress.
Does legality outweigh morality?
They are two different concepts - you might as well say does history outweigh geography:shrug:
The law has no necessary moral content. There are illegal things which are moral, and legal things that are immoral. Legality has no bearing on whether something is moral or not - as LS has said if a law is immoral we are obliged to oppose it.

So legality certainly doesn’t dictate morality or override it. You don’t need to be Catholic or even Christian to agree with that.

Does all that make sense?

NB: descriptive = “is”
normative = “ought”

VERY GOOD

Albeit I knew this from the start.

Then why would you state this “The existence of foetal homicide statutes (excepting Massachusetts) emphasizes the fact that common law doesn’t recognize the foetus as a person.”] If you weren’t trying to point out that the legality - As if this is some magic criteria for In favor of ] abortion?

We ALL knew it was “descriptive” of the situation - legally -.and you chose to use it as if it was some sort of moral compass in favor of abortion.

It legality ] is not a moral compass…History teaches this - time and again.

 

[Doc_Keele]

VERY GOOD

Albeit I knew this from the start

Given your protestations I felt like I shouldn’t assume any knowledge whatsoever

Then why would you state this “The existence of foetal homicide statutes (excepting Massachusetts) emphasizes the fact that common law doesn’t recognize the foetus as a person.”] If you weren’t trying to point out that the legality - As if this is some magic criteria for In favor of ] abortion?

We ALL knew it was “descriptive” of the situation

You didn’t seem to

• legally -.and you chose to use it as if it was some sort of moral compass in favor of abortion.

Who’s making unwarranted assertions of fact now?

 

[LittleSoldier]

OK, I am now ready to continue with your paper…

My thinking on this then is to find a new definition of life. We need one that we can not only define but actually find a starting point to. What makes YOU alive in a way a goat is not? Or in a way a plant is not? What makes the developing baby alive in a way the zygote was not? What makes the zygote alive in a way the sperm was not? What makes sperm alive in a way that a brain cell is not? What makes a growing foetus alive in a way a growing tumour is not?
We need a new definition of life.

 

[kimmielittle]

Given your protestations I felt like I shouldn’t assume any knowledge whatsoever

Who’s making unwarranted assertions of fact now?

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

Without higher level brain activity of a certain type we declare a person DEAD. Therefore if we can identify a point in foetal development when this same activity isn’t formed yet then we can clearly call it “not alive yet”.

When a person is dead his/her cells degrade. They don’t work anymore. They can’t continue to divide, to carry on metabolism, or to do anything else that living cells can do. The cells that form in the zygote do not degrade. They can divide, carry on metabolism, and do everything else that living cells can do. That’s because they are alive, although clearly not alive in the same way the embryo as a whole is.

So far your argument appears to be the following: “Live” cells (the spermatozoan and the ovum) combine to form a “dead” zygote which then somehow comes to life when consciousness is present. That is so illogical. You have completely disregarded the processes that take place in living cells. It seems that you portray them as little blobs that just take up space but don’t have internal parts such as nuclei, mitochondria, etc. that are functioning. Living cells work. They do things. Dead cells don’t. How does a “not alive yet” uh, “being” contain cells which are actually doing things? What about all the processes that are taking place in the embryo: the development of fingerprints, arm and leg buds, etc. How can these structures be being built in a being that isn’t even alive yet?

It’s illogical.

So sadly illogical.

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

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

 

[kimmielittle]

-----continuation of last post-----

When a person is dead his/her cells degrade. They don’t work anymore. They can’t continue to divide, to carry on metabolism, or to do anything else that living cells can do. The cells that form in the zygote do not degrade. They can divide, carry on metabolism, and do everything else that living cells can do. That’s because they are alive, although clearly not alive in the same way the embryo as a whole is.

So far your argument appears to be the following: “Live” cells (the spermatozoan and the ovum) combine to form a “dead” zygote which then somehow comes to life when consciousness is present. That is so illogical. You have completely disregarded the processes that take place in living cells. It seems that you portray them as little blobs that just take up space but don’t have internal parts such as nuclei, mitochondria, etc. that are functioning. Living cells work. They do things. Dead cells don’t. How does a “not alive yet” uh, “being” contain cells which are actually doing things? What about all the processes that are taking place in the embryo: the development of fingerprints, arm and leg buds, etc. How can these structures be being built in a being that isn’t even alive yet?

It’s illogical.

So sadly illogical.

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

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

WELL DONE!!:clapping::clapping:

 

[flyingfish]

I would go hungry for “it.”

There are children going hungry in the third world right now. Are you going hungry for them? How many calories have you had today? Are you disconnecting your internet so you can send that money to feed them? Are you selling your house and renting a cheap room somewhere with a few other families and getting a few more jobs so you can use that extra money to save third world children?

No, you’re not. It’s just empty words to say you would go hungry for it, when there are plenty of starving kids you could be going hungry for right now and aren’t.

As for my computer, without going into detail, this is the way I communicate with the world. It’s the only way I have to reach people worldwide. It is an integral tool used for what I believe I am on this earth to accomplish.

I am going to refuse to remark any more about my contributions to the poor, except to say that I value any human being more than a structure, even if that structure is my home

I’m not saying you should give that up, just don’t say that you’d be willing to sacrifice everything for a strangers’ child. Communicating with the world is obviously more important to you than using the money you spend to pay for internet/computer to feed a starving child. (For that matter, you could communicate with the world using the library’s computer and internet. )

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this, the vast majority of people are like this. It’s normal and natural. I’m only being hard on you because frankly I find it upsetting when people make unrealistic claims about the kinds of sacrifices people should be willing to make and they’re willing to make without actually doing it.

No - it makes no sense at all. None. Why would a non-existent uh, “it” have value to anyone? IT DOESN’T EVEN EXIST!

I don’t know if you’re deliberately choosing to misunderstand me, but I obviously didn’t say that the newborn doesn’t exist, I said a person doesn’t exist inside the newborn.

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----Correction to Post #385-----

The following is a quote from my post #385:

As for gravity, it might not be gone, even if you float up and hit your head on (not off) the ceiling. It might just be less than what we are used to.

That was misstated. What I meant to say is:

As for gravity, it might not be gone, even if you float up and hit your head on (not off) the ceiling. It might just be different from what we are used to. (Darn that twenty minute limit on editing posts!)

I actually thought about this for awhile and also thought about a house fly in a car travelling at 60 kmh not smashing into the windshield because the air goes along with the car. This makes me think that even if gravity suddenly is shut off, that one may not float up and hit one’s head on the ceiling. Also, if gravity is shut off, wouldn’t the whole building and the atmosphere move away from the center of the earth’s mass?

This is off-topic and it’s been a long time since I took physics, so I’ve decided to just let this be and not list the other possible reasons why someone would float up and hit his/her head on the ceiling.

I apologize for the error.

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

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

 

[adriancombe]

No. For one thing, I don’t believe an inductive argument can ever be classified as irrefutable.

It is only inductive if you assume there is no principle of uncertainty. The example of the hunter is used to highlight the principle.

 

[LittleSoldier]

There are children going hungry in the third world right now. Are you going hungry for them? How many calories have you had today? Are you disconnecting your internet so you can send that money to feed them? Are you selling your house and renting a cheap room somewhere with a few other families and getting a few more jobs so you can use that extra money to save third world children?

No, you’re not. It’s just empty words to say you would go hungry for it, when there are plenty of starving kids you could be going hungry for right now and aren’t.

There are no empty words for me. You’re accusing me of being a hypocrite and that is really inappropriate. Personally, I don’t care what you think about me. I believe I explained that I need my computer so that I can do what I am here to do. I’m not allowed to discuss personal revelations and I won’t. There are things about me that you do not know and will not know because I am not going to tell you. But I want you to know that not every person in a “civilized” country is above the poverty line, is in good health and able to hold down a job, and doesn’t have a ton of medical expenses she needs to pay because of a severe injury received while protecting the rights and health of people like you who then hound her with questions in an attempt to put her on the spot and either “boast” about her charity work or admit she is a liar and a hypocrite.

I am going to tell you two things and then I am not going to respond to any more questioning put to me about this:

(1) I do not lie. I am a sinner, just like everyone else, but I am very, very careful not to lie. It’s the one sin I do not commit and I don’t commit it because in the past I did and it became easier to do each time I did. So I stopped cold turkey and I’m not going to begin again to placate you.

(2) I am not going to list the charities I donate to and the amounts of money, goods, and time I donate to them or discuss fostering children in Third World countries. How I donate money, goods, and time is my business and is between myself, those charities and organizations, and God.

Now, please do not ask me again.

I’m not saying you should give that up, just don’t say that you’d be willing to sacrifice everything for a strangers’ child. Communicating with the world is obviously more important to you than using the money you spend to pay for internet/computer to feed a starving child. (For that matter, you could communicate with the world using the library’s computer and internet. )

Aren’t you funny. Ha ha. I am going to give you a hint (the only one you will ever receive from me). There are certain people who cannot go to the library and use the computer there. They are:

(1) the severely injured, home-bound disabled people who can’t legally drive and can’t afford taxis, and live in a town with no public transportation;
(2) those who take medication with severe side effects so that it takes them much longer to use a computer than “normal” people;
(3) those who try to make appointments at the library to use the computer and are turned down because they cannot get transportation to the library at the only times the computers are available;
(4) those people who have severe back injuries and who can’t sit in chairs to use the computer at the library, but must lie on their sides because that’s the only comfortable position for much of their entire freaking awful painful lives.
(5) those people who suffer from psychotic depression and/or panic disorder and/or agoraphobia and/or PTSD and/or MPD and who can’t even get ten feet inside a library before they end up in a huddled mass in a corner, knowing they are dying and praying they have the strength to get through the door.

I’m in that list, in more than one category. Now please, let it be.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this, the vast majority of people are like this. It’s normal and natural. I’m only being hard on you because frankly I find it upsetting when people make unrealistic claims about the kinds of sacrifices people should be willing to make and they’re willing to make without actually doing it.

There is something wrong with you making assumptions about me when you have absolutely no idea what I do, what I am, what I go through, and how ** I SERVE GOD.** You are judging me and that is not your place.

It is abnormal to consider a structure as being more valuable than any person on earth. I’m not making unrealistic claims. You are being unrealistic and cold when you make your remarks about killing people. It makes it sound like you’re culling a herd of springboks. I find it offensive, nauseating, and repugnant.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

I don’t know if you’re deliberately choosing to misunderstand me, but I obviously didn’t say that the newborn doesn’t exist, I said a person doesn’t exist inside the newborn.

A person doesn’t exist inside the newborn. Uh, OK. You stated before that the unborn didn’t exist as they don’t have self-awareness. Newborns don’t have self-awareness either, so why do they exist? What is a newborn to you? A “potential” person? A “pre-person?” What exactly is this non-person that exists that it’s OK TO KILL?
Now here is a quote from you in the thread labeled “Abortion Due to Gender” (post 594):

1. I think that only organisms whose brains are capable of generating minds (i.e. self awareness/thoughts) qualify for things like right to life. It doesn’t matter to me if the organism is a human, a dolphin, an alien, AI, whatever. If it can have a mind (even if it’s on and off), it has rights.** If it has no ability to make a mind, it might as well be an inanimate object or a complex, but mindless, piece of technology and it makes no sense to talk about its rights.**
2. From what I have read of neuroscience and psychology, embryos, fetuses, and** even newborns** do not have brains sophisticated enough to generate minds.
3. Embryos, fetuses etc. live inside their mother, a person, who for various reasons may need or want to end a pregnancy. Because the mother thinks/feels and so on and the fetus doesn’t, her needs and wants take precedence.
4. Once the baby is born, I still don’t think it should be considered a person until it becomes complex enough to have a mind. But at the same time I don’t think the woman should be able to kill it if she feels like it. She can give it up for adoption if she doesn’t want to be a mother. If someone else were to kill her baby, it would still be a crime because he would be destroying a complex organism that has intrinsic value (but not as much as a person) and also he would be doing a lot of damage to the parents of the baby who may have wanted it.

4a) In some extreme circumstances, such as when there is no one to adopt the baby, and the woman may be too poor to feed it and her existing children,** it would be acceptable to simply let the baby die** since otherwise it would have to take resources needed for the survival of persons. [added bolding is mine]

From the above and from other posts I have a strong impression that you are only stating that newborns are somehow quasi-valuable non-persons to placate prolifers or for some other bizarre reason. Please let me lay it out for you:
You contradict yourself constantly. First you say unborn children don’t even exist and have no right to life and it’s OK to kill them. You say they don’t even know they’re being killed. Then you say newborns have no self-awareness and no mind and no right to life, but it’s wrong to kill them. Then you say in some cases (like lack of food) it is OK to kill them.

It’s right, it’s wrong. They have no right to life, but they kind of do. They are property. They don’t have minds because they have no self-awareness and they aren’t persons so they have no right to life but it’s probably not wrong to kill them if there is a shortage of food.
And if they are not lucky enough to be born it’s OK to abort them because sex is fun and why should you have to give up your fun just because of a mindless blob of cells that don’t even exist?

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

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

 

[flyingfish]

(1) the severely injured, home-bound disabled people who can’t legally drive and can’t afford taxis, and live in a town with no public transportation;
(2) those who take medication with severe side effects so that it takes them much longer to use a computer than “normal” people;
(3) those who try to make appointments at the library to use the computer and are turned down because they cannot get transportation to the library at the only times the computers are available;
(4) those people who have severe back injuries and who can’t sit in chairs to use the computer at the library, but must lie on their sides because that’s the only comfortable position for much of their entire freaking awful painful lives.
(5) those people who suffer from psychotic depression and/or panic disorder and/or agoraphobia and/or PTSD and/or MPD and who can’t even get ten feet inside a library before they end up in a huddled mass in a corner, knowing they are dying and praying they have the strength to get through the door.

I’m sorry if what I said hurt you. I don’t think that you should be selling your computer and going to the library. I don’t think you’re a bad person in any way for not doing that, and I never meant to suggest that you are a bad person.

It was not my intention to judge you.

A person doesn’t exist inside the newborn. Uh, OK. You stated before that the unborn didn’t exist as they don’t have self-awareness. Newborns don’t have self-awareness either, so why do they exist? What is a newborn to you? A “potential” person? A “pre-person?” What exactly is this non-person that exists that it’s OK TO KILL?

I meant to say that the person doesn’t exist, obviously I don’t think a fetus is a vacuum with nothingness inside it. What exists is a human fetus, or a human newborn. It’s not yet a person, but it’s on its way to growing into one.

I don’t know how else I can phrase it. I don’t think it makes sense to talk about rights with respect to a physical system that doesn’t have self awareness or thoughts.

I don’t think there is anything else I can say to make my position any clearer than I have already made it.

 

[Doc_Keele]

kimmielittle, I’m still baffled as to why someone who claims to know what my comment meant needs to ask if I believe legality outweighs morality? It doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

LittleSoldier,

If you are finding anger in my posts then I am afraid it exists in one place only, your own imagination and if you think that anger is directed at you personally then you may need to unpack and explore the victim mentality through which you are operating. No one on a forum such as this has the capability to anger me. This is not a comment about them, or about you, but about me. I know what is required to fuel rage on my part and those elements simply are not present on an internet forum. That said, maybe in future you can address the post, and not the poster.

That said, if you wish to use god as part of an argument, then please have the decency to show said entity exists. If I used any data, science, quotation or information I would have the decency to show you my sources when asked. I do not find it out of line to ask the same of you, nor am I about to pander to requests to do otherwise.

You are right however, the definitions of life are arbitrary. Further they are also highly variable with people happy to jump from one to the other as it suits. It is for this reason I try and find a definition that is at least relevant to the discussion of “abortion” and “rights” and “right to life”.

Since we can only show one source of rights (given your lack of evidence, and willingness, to establish the god source) I find the faculty that provides us with such notions to be a perfectly grounded definition of when and to what we should assign “rights”. We certainly do not assign them to rocks, tables, bones, limbs or even DNA.

The only argument you however have presented is the “uniqueness” of the DNA in a zygote. So what? The DNA in the sperm is unique too. It is a unique combination formed from a mix of the fathers DNA. So although it is made up of only the DNA of the father, it is still a unique combination of it. If you do not believe this then look up the term “recombination” for example during the “mytosis” that creates the male gamete.

And that is even before you look at the rest of the animal kingdom, it is populated everywhere by “unique” DNA. Why is “unique DNA” only special if it is “HUMAN unique DNA”? The Unique DNA argument you present is solely based on an assumption we as humans are all that important in the first place. What makes us important? As I said, the only thing is the faculty of human conciousness which is the only source of “rights” we know of, so in a discussion about “rights” it is of paramount importance, not the randomness of some new string of amino acids.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

but I wonder if you chose to miss my point - because it doesn’t fit your IMHO ] poorly constructed ideas and don’t wish to move from them?

AD Hominem. Some decorum please. Please address the post and not the poster. I openly and honestly reached out and said I need more help understanding your point of view. In response to that you chose instead to use it as a chance to question my honesty and approach. If that is the kind of person you are, then so be it, but I am not about to pander to it.

You made your point, I honestly did not understand it and genuinely wanted to know more. If that offends you then the problem is not with me, but solely with you. When you choose to actually elaborate on your point politely then get back to me.

The plans don’t become the table.

Exactly, nor does the DNA “become” the person. It is just the instructions on how to build what we call the person.