₦airaland Forum

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?

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.

thehomer: You have just conceded that Humans don't need a God to validate their lives.

It is in a different category from property is all I'm saying.

By evaluating, we're assessing the situation. Taking a lot of things into consideration to determine the next step. The next step isn't necessary assigning blame.

Sorry you've conceded that at the very least, a person's life is theirs by your idea of the properly basic so they don't derive it from any individual.

Your questions are pretty irrelevant or just misguided and you're going to have to start showing how answers to the questions would help you.

Now can you tell me whether or not the role of the agent is important. You never answered that from here.

Kay 17: I will repeat myself again.

Premise 2 states that "For a thing to be either good or bad, a subject person MUST exist to experience it"

If the subject person does not exist, then there wouldn't be good or bad, that's why I said premise 2 is predicated upon subjectivity. No person's view, no bad or good.

Your conclusion hammers home my point: "Conclusion: Therefore if to die means to cease to exist, there is nothing wrong with the state death since the dead experience nothing. Furthermore following from this, killing a person is not intrinsically wrong."

Mr anony, it is blatantly clear and obvious. There is no misunderstanding here. You have violated your own presupposition.

I remember one of your posts, where you you used premise 2 to support 3. I will keep searching for it.

thehomer: Even if I cannot define what I mean by objective good, it doesn't stop you from defining what you mean by objective good does it?

thehomer: And you finally reveal that you actually weren't ready to defend you own view because so far, you've not been able to present one to answer the very first set of questions in the OP. I expected you to answer them using whatever notion of good you want to use but you're unable to present your own "objective good" while claiming that I haven't presented anything.

I'm still here whenever you're ready to hold up your own ideas to the light of reason.

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?

mazaje1: I think he has, he said "That which is generally beneficial to the well-being of conscious creatures".

Kay 17: But if I close my eyes, it is still green; same with Death, a value judgement on death is not on predicated on a subjective experience hence your premise 2, 3, and conclusion don't stand!

mazaje1: I can see thehomer answering questions thrown at him and anony dancing around his tail as usual. . .

thehomer: And you just keep stumbling from fallacy to fallacy. What you've given above is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Being born-again isn't determined by going to heaven. How do you tell that someone is born again?

Nah. You can open a thread here to discuss those passages with your fellow Christians and we can take a look at the views that would be expressed.

Wrong yet again. You think it is merely conjecture but like I've said over and over again, that idea is supported as fact from the Bible by people who are supposed to be experts in the Bible. I've presented an accurate view that you don't agree with while failing to actually critique the view actually held by your fellow Christians.

Well what you "know" to be true is actually not true unless your line of reasoning is fallacious. Just take a look at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again_%28Christianity%29]the discussion[/url] Christians are having with each other and tell me how it is that Mr anony is the only one who knows what the truth is.

Since you don't seem to have your own view, please tell me why Christians who claim to know are actually wrong.

Logicboy03: Killing of twins was borne out of the best sources of silliness religion/culture.

Catholic church and many churches preached against condoms. Keep accusing me of lying when you are the liar...mtchew

frosbel: never said they were not, but you are wrong and seriously so , to suggest that God blesses people with deformed babies, this is false.

It is also false to say , as you have implied, that you would glady accept such a child into this world , though you might do so with sober resignation.

Just to buttress my position, I am talking about severely deformed babies , imo downs syndrome and the likes do not qualify as a severe disability or deformity.

Logicboy03: let's take another rare event- your daughter gets kidnapped for four months and gets raped.....she is with child.....you would keep the bastard child of a rapist?

Please, say yes and tempt God.....

thehomer: I showed it to you when I pointed out that Nazis weren't being jailed for beating Jews to death.

Firstly, the improvement of science has a significant bearing on this decision and isn't a mere side attraction. There is something morally wrong with killing a fetus when it has attained a certain stage of development because it can continue its development outside the mother. Thus, her right to choose is no longer being infringed upon once it has attained that stage.

.....Thus, her right to choose is no longer being infringed upon once it has attained that stage.

Okay.
Sure I know that but your response wasn't clear on that.
Sure I'll grant that I am the same person in a colloquial sense but in a significant sense, I'm not the same person because obviously I'm not identical to what I was 2 years ago.
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.
I can accept that I'm the same person colloquially but I'm not identical to what was born to my mother.

So, this question is based on the faulty premise that there is a precise time when one becomes a human being with rights equal to or greater than that of the adult mother.

Since you think that a zygote automatically has the same rights as the adult mother, are there any circumstances under which an abortion can be performed?

frosbel: Yes children are a gift from God , but God does not bless us with deformed babies, this is the stuff of fanaticism.

A deformed baby can be the product of chemical factors such as Chernobyl disaster, 2nd world war nuclear holocaust in Japan etc , or , it could be a product of biological diseases and/or malformities. In any case it is not normal, it is abnormal.

"The blessing of the LORD makes a person rich, and he adds no sorrow with it." - Proverbs 10:22

OLAADEGBU: As Christians who believe in the absolute morality of God as spelt out in the decalogue we can but atheism doesn't agree with this standard.

thehomer: It is also common knowledge that I base morality on the idea of the well-being of conscious creatures yet I stated my own view. I just want you to state your own views so you don't accuse me of putting words into your mouth.



By the idea that certain certain actions are objectively beneficial to e.g human well-being than others.



But that isn't what I've said, I've said your God is not objectively good because his actions aren't at the very least beneficial to the well-being of humans at the very least. You on the other hand are asking me to maybe formulate your view for you.



That which is generally beneficial to the well-being of conscious creatures. Now can you tell me what you think "good" is?



Wrong. How people like their tea in the morning can be contribute to their well-being. We don't need an absolutely perfect definition in order to have this discussion.

While you have actually said nothing.



Discussions don't work that way. You have to actually present your own position and be ready to defend it rather than merely sitting back and folding your own hands.

Now to help you out and move this conversation forward, does your idea of goodness have anything at all to do with the well-being of humans?

Reyginus: While agree with you that morality deals with actions, I also hold that irrespective of it, it is dependent on the state of a being to happen. Morality cannot exist if their is nothing to experience it. It is not like morality is a phenomenon in nature.

frosbel: Do you seriously believe that it is GOD who gives severely deformed babies ?

Logicboy03:

Your solution to overpopulation is murder? Why not go and shoot Chinese people? madness...


As for me, abortion is a form of family planning- no resources to take care of the child and limited options for adoption? Abort the bastard before he grows up to be a nonchalant nuisance and menace to the society

But better yet, condoms are a more humane method of family planning but thanks to christian and islamic hypocrisy, sdex education and condoms are seen as evil..........

frosbel: I am personally against abortion, however, I will not gladly receive such a deformed child into this world which is different from saying I will justify it's murder.

So let me rephrase my question to give you the benefit of doubt :

Will you glady receive a severely deformed child into this world ?

Logicboy03: 1) Just like your mentor, William Craig, you are running away from your own God...bros Jonah....
You believe in God and I dont believe in any. You believe that Yahweh created humans and life.....if abortion is murder than Yahweh is a murderer. Natural abortions are the most common ones by far.

2) Dr Gosnell's argument fails....prevention is always done at an early stage. Why not immunize a child at 17 years? We are preventing child abuse/starvation and overpopulation here not curing something that is already there. Commonsense is not common

3) Who said that I want to kill Chinese people? Your strawman speaking for you again?

frosbel: No one said it did, stop dodging the question and provide a straight answer , let your yes be yes and no be no.

Will you gladly bring such a baby into the world ?

Logicboy03: The life of the mother? Yo want two people to die instead of one?

You seriously cant think outside your one dimension....life is in 3 dimension, bro

frosbel: The question to you is this , if you knew that your baby ( God forbid it be so ) was going to be born with 5 heads, 12 legs , no hands etc, would you not mind bringing this baby or babies into the world in this form ??

Logicboy03: lol......you are the one that is low on juice.


Dead people move due to chemical reactions and stuff.

Simple point which you foolishly tried to somehow debunk with "stimuli"


Edit- dead bodies

Logicboy03: See this one remix and spin master

1) Are you now an atheist? lolol.....If abortion is murder then, the God you believe in is a murderer since there are natural abortions- the way we were made. You forget that abortion is natural.

2) My point was that courts decide a lot on humanity or things that make us humans. But feel free to stretch it anyhow you want

3)Remix and spin all you want- christians like you are ready to force a depressed and financially poor woman (example-she lost her husband) to have a child (instead of aborting). You christians dont care if the woman can take care of the child. It is okay if the child survives abortion only to die later of constant child abuse (beatings) or starvation due to the mental health of the mother.

Simple. What of overpopulation? You want Chinese to outlaw abortions? Let see you make that argument.

OLAADEGBU: As you might have discovered, atheists don't agree that killing babies in the womb is murder because they don't think they are killing human beings while some followers of the "religion of peace" would think that it is perfectly right according to their faith to kill adherents of other religions. So whose moral code should we agree on? Who is to say what the moral code should be?

Logicboy03: lol........a spontaneous abortion is what?



Is caused by nothing? No stimuli abi?


See ignoramus.

Reyginus: In the ideal world, what we imagine may affect the actions we take, but one sure thing is that these imaginations can never affect the conformation of that being thought of, so long it is not evident in existence.
Anybody can think up anything, prepare for it in the most significant of ways, but the true fact remains that the preparation and thinking process has nothing to do with determining the moral state the thing coming will take, because morality is not restricted to either good evil, but accomodates both.
This reminds me of a neighbour back in the days. The person is question, a lady, was so sure her next issue would be a girl that all the baby items she bought were for girls, even when though she was advised to go for unisex wears. So, it happened that when she conceived, it was a boy. She had to pay for this action by going back to spend an amount of money, which could have being used for other purposes, on buying boy wears.
I think if our imaginations can affect the non-existent, it shows that our definition of non-existence is either flawed or dependent on our imagination for existence. The later will be delusional.

...
I beg to disagree with you here. Morality as we know it draws an antithesis between that which is good and evil. The expression of an act, I think, can never be inbetween this two, that is, neither good nor evil. It must belong to a particular section of the camp. Correct me if I'm wron. If that is so, let's do a brief measurement of what it means to be sad on the morality scale.
Sad: The absence of happiness.
Happy: The state of being pleased.
Biologically, happiness maintains the integrity of the human muscles which aids in keeping the human younger and vitalized.
Politically, it eliminates any conception of anarchy of the individuals in a state.
Socially, it leads to better relations.
If we are to take all the above premises to be true, ofcourse they are. We can conclude that happiness is a very significant good to the survival of man.
What I'm trying to do here is to explain the evil(or bad) in sadness by painting a picture depicting the absence of it.

OLAADEGBU: It is funny that those who are pro choice think it's alright to kill babies in the womb but would balk at the idea of Adolf Hilter sanctioning the killing of 11 million people in the Holocaust.