striktlymi: Let's put things in proper perspective...

Do we play God with the life of the unborn because we are scared to have a child that looks like this?

Logicboy03:



Dont be silly. It is only Frosbel that gave such an excuse.

striktlymi:

Don't be silly...does the post have your name on it?

Logicboy03:


huh? Na question be that?

Logicboy03: Because, you are nothing without your mother and it is her decision in her womb (also forgetting that you're a bastard child from a terrible molestation that should have been avoided)

Logicboy03: ^^^

lol......rights? Rights decided by courts? Ehem, can you appear in a court in person? lol.....I didnt think so.

Mr anony:
And how does that relate to the analogy again?

Mr anony:
Interesting. If I hear you correctly, you are saying that there is something morally wrong with killing a foetus as long as there is the scientific equipment available to allow it to survive outside the womb.

Mr anony:
1. I hope you do realize that this makes a woman's right to choose an arbitrary right and not a fundamental human right.
(because if it was, she will still retain her right to kill the foetus at any time regardless of whatever advances are made in science and technology)

Mr anony:
2.The defence that it is a woman's body and she has the right to do with it as she pleases falls to pieces because as the age of viability falls, the woman's right over "her body" gets restricted some more.

Mr anony:
3. She must now give birth to the baby against her will even if she would have preferred to abort it. once it is past a certain age (an age which by the way, can get even lower tomorrow)

Mr anony:
4. Your argument therefore implies that the woman never had a "right to choose" in the first place. The real question was whether to grant the baby it's right to life.

Mr anony:
This part doesn't follow the sentence preceding it because her right to choose to abort is precisely what is being "infringed upon"

Mr anony:
Interesting. I find the words "colloquial" and "significant" to be very subjective. Let's use something more objective shall we?

Mr anony:
Do you hold to the substance view of human beings whereby a person is still a person regardless of physical body changes i.e thehomer in the womb is the same as thehomer at age 8 and thehomer today and will also be the same person if he lives for another forty years even if he has massive plastic surgery and manages to change his body to that of a white woman?

Or Do you hold a material view of human beings where the person is only the same as long as his constituent parts remain the same i.e. thehomer in the womb is different from thehomer at age 8 who is also different from thehomer today. Infact thehomer has changed in the last five minutes to someone else because he is no longer made up of the same configuration of matter?

Which of these views takes per-emminence when defining your personhood. Which is more "significant" (to use your own words)? You can't have it both ways.

Mr anony:
Interesting. If I hear you correctly, you are insinuating that an adult is human while a zygote is not.

Let us look at how that plays out

zygote = not human/subhuman

.......9 months of gestation......

baby = fully human (I'm assuming that you consider a baby to be fully human)

.......30 years of growth.......

adult = fully human.

And you think that it is a "faulty premise" to say that at some point in that 9 month period, the "subhuman" zygote became human? Please tell me how that works again. How do you move from non-human to human without moving from non-human to human?

It is either you accord the zygote it's human status or you tell us at what point it becomes fully human. Or perhaps you think there are human beings more human than others?

Mr anony:
Yes and they will coincide with circumstances when it is permissible to kill another human being. e.g. when the life of the life of one endangers the life of the mother in which case we try to save the two but if the child passes away, we mourn him/her. That is not murder.

thehomer:
It shows that your analogy was fatally flawed because of that error.

Yes there is something wrong with killing a foetus beyond the age of viability.

No it doesn't make it arbitrary. Do you recall when you accepted that people have a properly basic right to their lives?

The fact of advancement of modern technology limits that right in the same way that the advancement of modern technology would make euthanasia in a situation where a once fatal untreatable illness not permissible.

Rights are modified all the time with technology.

If she is that desperate to get the baby out beyond the age of viability, then she is welcome to do that.

False. My argument doesn't imply that in any way.

False. It is being restricted like rights have always been restricted.

You really should be careful with subjectivity and objectivity.

Both of them are important concepts or "tools" to be used when the appropriate situation arises. Your error is in trying to conflate them as meaning that they're identical.

What you've done meets the textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy. See here. You have to first present a non-fallacious line of thought.

Okay here are a few examples for your consideration.
Is abortion in the case of incest permissible 12 hours after conception? How about 12 hours after a rape? How about at 18 weeks if it is discovered that the fetus will not survive outside the uterus?

Mr anony:
Lololol, so that's how it works now. Throw out an unrelated response and claim failure? Very good, very good indeed.

Mr anony:
What is wrong with it? Could it be because such a fetus is a human being?

Mr anony:
I don't. Please remind me

Mr anony:
You've lost me here. Please clarify.

Mr anony:
Fundamental human rights too?

Mr anony:
There is a difference between aborting the baby and "getting it out". Which do you mean?

Mr anony:
Explain why I'm wrong then

Mr anony:
You mean fundamental human rights have always been justly restricted? Or are you conceding that the "right to choose" is not a fundamental human right?

Mr anony:
You really should be careful with vague terms like "significant" and "colloquial"

Mr anony:
They are clearly not identical. You only wish to be allowed the freedom to switch from one to the other whenever it suits you.

Mr anony:
It does not. I have only challenged your wildly illogical idea. Could you please demonstrate exactly how I have commited the slippery slope fallacy instead of merely asserting it?

thehomer:
No you're not justified in making that leap because such a leap commits the slippery slope fallacy. It is fallacious because there are in fact actual differences between say a zygote and a teenager at 15. e.g The teenager has a brain while the zygote doesn't.

Mr anony:
Are you about to concede that abortion is only permissible when it meets these very special requirements? If not then I don't see the sense of trying to employ very special and ad hoc scenarios to help you justify abortion in principle

Deep Sight:
@ Anony,

Do you consider the embryo as formed shortly after conception (within 2 - 4 weeks after conception) to be a human being?

Take a look at this image. It is an image of what the embryo looks like at that stage.

Is this a human being?

striktlymi: Morning peeps,

I believe firmly that a zygote is human...my argument is very simple really and it is thus:


Every human being is gifted with a human life...

Human life does not change irrespective of the stage of human development...

A zygote possesses this human life...

Hence a zygote is a human being...

Mr anony:
Neither is it the mother's body

Logicboy03:
2) If abortion is murder, God is the best murderer since natural abortion is the most common abortion. Simple one dimensional silliness

OLAADEGBU:

I thought anony gave the right response when he said the "lesser of two evils", but what is the chance of that happening in all the abortions being committed? You cannot hide under the excuse of rare events such as the "life of the mother" to commit murder at will.

Logicboy03:
Smh......I tire for this Anonynizing nonsense.....truly and truly, I see arguing with you as a waste of time nowadays.
4) What if the mother is in danger and will die if the pregnancy carries on?

Mr anony: I thought you missed me
Then it is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils.

jayriginal:

Remember, both of you have said that abortion is murder. Then there really should be no need to ask if it is ok to murder a three headed, 7 legged and one handed fetus.

The minute any of you says its ok, then it means you dont know what you are talking about because you have both earlier declared it to be murder.

Logicboy03:
Abortion is murder
Natural abortions happen
God is a murder because he made abortion to be natural.

OLAADEGBU:

Is that not double standard? What's the difference between the 11 million people who died in the Holocaust and the 53 million unborn babies killed in America?

thehomer:
That response wasn't unrelated. If your first analogy isn't actually analogous to the situation at hand, then you cannot use that analogy.

No, because at that point, the state has an interest in the fetus.

You accepted that idea here.

What don't you understand?

Any right affected by that technology.

Getting it out also covers abortion. Evacuating the uterus is the broad term.

I'm saying she still has the right to choose even after the age of viability. The difference is that the child can survive then.

All rights have restriction. To put it simply, your right to swing your fist ends if my face is in the way. My face being in the way is a "restriction" on your right to swing your fist.

Those words fit the situation pretty well. What words would you have used to express the ideas I expressed?

If you accept that they're not identical, then you've just admitted that each idea has its uses.

I'm not switching whenever it suits me, I'm using the tool that best fits the job at hand.

Done right here. I said:


Please take a look at the reference link I posted for more information.

No I'm not. I've said is is permissible before the age of viability. In fact, I'll say an evacuation of the uterus is permissible at any time. As you can see, it also covers abortions. On a side not, I'm also saying that a normal delivery at nine months or a Caesarian section at nine months can also be considered an evacuation of the uterus.

I just wonder what you think about them. My position on this is pretty clear. Yours isn't.

Deep Sight:
@ Anony,

Do you consider the embryo as formed shortly after conception (within 2 - 4 weeks after conception) to be a human being?

Take a look at this image. It is an image of what the embryo looks like at that stage.

Is this a human being?

Mr anony:
Short answer: Yes it is a human being. I take a substance view of human beings and not a material one. In a few years that same embryo would have grown enough to argue on Nairaland.
Will you say that the grown-up embryo is not the same person as the adult? Are you willing to hold that a non-human being attains humanness at some point? if yes, what point exactly is it? where do we draw that line?

Mr anony:



Would you also grant that you are still the same person even though more or less all the cells that constituted your body when you were 2 years old are now dead?

If the above is true then I am justified in saying that
a zygote is the same person as the embryo at 1 week old,
the same person as the foetus at 6 months old,
the same person as the baby at 1 year,
same as the teenager at 15,
the same as the adult today
and will still be the same as the elderly person 40 years from now.
All that happened is that this zygote grew.

Now if you accept that you are the same person that was born to your mother, then I don't see why that baby is not the same as the zygote that was formed at fertilization. You are the same human being all through your life from conception to death regardless of which parts of your body you may lack or have lacked at any point in time.

thehomer:

Premise 1 is a tautology. Is like saying water is gifted with the quality of being wet.

thehomer:
Premise 2 is debatable. Life does change depending on the stage of human development.

thehomer:
Premise 3 is what is being contested.

thehomer:
Conclusion is therefore unsound.

truthislight: Errrm, errrm.
*clears threath*

the below post by @mr Anony was and is the Game winner am afraid, unless proved otherwise



^ Resolutely and perfectly stated.

*hands over the cup for the Debate of this thread to Anony*

Mr anony:
I think I showed you precisely how they were analogous. I can't help it if you choose to stubbornly reject it without reason.

Mr anony:
The state now determines moral right and wrong?

Mr anony:
I still don't see how I did. Please provide quotes in context.

Mr anony:
Where euthanasia comes in. Please rephrase

Mr anony:
That's a non-answer. All you've really said is "technology affects rights that can be affected by technology". Circular Reasoning

Mr anony:
Lol, "evacuating the uterus" indeed. Except in cases of abortion they make sure to stop the heartbeat of the foetus before carrying on with the "evacuation".
Isn't it funny how people can get really vague when they want to justify murder and soften it's moral impact.

Mr anony:
Interesting. Remind me again exactly what her rights are: Does she have the right to kill the fetus while it is still in the womb or does she only have the right to bring it out and hope it survives?

Mr anony:
Interesting analogy. Does the mother's right to choose end where the baby's right to life starts? or is the baby only permitted to live because "the state has an interest"?

Mr anony:
The ones I used: substance and material.

Mr anony:
No it doesn't follow. People don't switch schools of thought back and forth as it suits them.


Lololol....Where you are the one who determines when the tool fits the job. Remind me again how you are not merely switching whenever it suits you.

Mr anony:
I did and yet I fail to see where you have demonstrated that I used the slippery slope fallacy. All you have done is claim it.

The question before you have before you is whether the zygote is the same person as the baby born at 9 months. Are both human? if not, at what point did one move from non-human to human?

Mr anony:
If you are not saying it is permissible only in such scenarios, then why bring it up? My position is also very clear. if the baby is human, then it has a right to live.

Mr anony:
By the way, one of Dr Gosnell's crimes was "evacuating the uterus" and leaving the premature fetus to die on the floor. If only he had made sure to kill it before "evacuating" it, he would have been innocent

Mr anony: By your definition, 1 week old babies do not count as human since they are incapable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. combined with an adaptation to bipedal locomotion that frees the hands for manipulating objects.


In fact monkeys are this stage are considerably more human according to you.

Mr anony:
Are you arguing that a human being is only human as long as it has the right body parts? Are amputees therefore less human than those with complete limbs?

Mr anony:
No it is not, I'm only bringing you face to face with your thesis.

Mr anony:
Yawn, you still haven't explained why it is an organ and not a human being? What does this 'organ' do for the body exactly?

Mr anony:
religious? no I am only wondering what else to call a person who thinks it is morally acceptable for women to have the right to kill their own children.

striktlymi: Alas, an attempt...let's see what we have here...



Nice try but no cigar!!!

The argument can be modified thus:

Every human (person or individual if you like) is gifted with a human life...

Human life does not change irrespective of the stage of human development...

A zygote possesses this human life...

Hence a zygote is a human being...

striktlymi:
WRONG!!! Experiences change not life as used...

When a young man is hit with sudden millions and he screams: My life has changed forever... in this context, the young man is not saying that the life he has, as used in my argument, has changed but he is only saying that his 'lot' in life has changed, hence a change in experience...

striktlymi:
Okay!



Conclusion is very sound...

#You danced well...

thehomer:

Your "modification" doesn't do anything to help your argument.

thehomer:
So his life hasn't changed just his lot in life that has changed?

thehomer:
Is there a change between the life of a fertilized egg and the life of a several trillion celled human? I think the mere difference in number is a pretty huge change.

thehomer:
Yet you're unable to show that it is sound.

thehomer:
Well you didn't. The fact that Nazis weren't punished for beating their prisoners to death means your analogies aren't analogous.

No, as I said before, the foetus at that point can survive outside the mother.

You'll have to follow the thread and the responses. You basically conceded it right at that link.

Euthanasia is acceptable for certain cancers. If the technology to treat them were available, then it won't be acceptable.

You can say it is tautological not that it is circular reasoning. Do you expect the technology to affect a right that cannot be affected by the technology? That simply makes no sense.

Yet we still have premature babies being born and surprise surprise we find that the uterus is empty or evacuated after their delivery. Or do we have the hearts of premature babies stopped too?

She has the right to her own body. If she wants her body before the age of viability then guess what? That foetus will die.

The mother's right continues through out her pregnancy.

Why don't you substitute them into my response and take a look at the idea you're presenting.

Wrong. Physicists use Newtonian theories when considering the motion of ballistic projectiles but switch to Einsteins theories when considering motion at or near the speed of light.

A classic example of using the best tools for the job.

What do you think a demonstration that you've committed the slippery slope fallacy would look like? That reference link I provided gave you the exposition of the fallacy and I gave you a concise summary of it.
I'm sorry but if you've read my response and read that reference link but still cannot see that you've presented a textbook case of the slippery slope fallacy, then I really cannot help you. I can only recommend that you try to get the necessary background knowledge on how to avoid such fallacious lines of though.

Oh I just wanted you to clarify that even if the baby would die 12 hours after the delivery, you would still want the mother to go through all the risks of pregnancy just to satisfy your ideas.

Wrong. He would have still been guilty of many other crimes including the point I've been making which is that based on the age of viability.

Anony: The story is about Dr Gosnell who was convicted of first degree murder for killing babies minutes after delivery.
If only he had killed them while they were yet in the womb or partially delivered, he would have been an innocent man.

I find the above story absurd. As someone put it, "It is like sentencing a Nazi soldier to prison for beating a Jew to death instead of conveniently sending him to the gas chamber as he had been trained to do.

thelonelyshadow: What if a woman is raped, is it then morally justified for her to abort the baby?

Mr anony:
Is it the baby's fault that the mother was raped? Why should the baby pay for the sins of the father?

Rape is unfortunate but the baby is a human life and doesn't deserve to suffer for something it didn't do.