Abortion Debate

Post by Azazel

Unless we are taking about a respirator of course.

Post by MyTie

Ok, I guess no one is going to back up the claim that I've "insulted people". I suspect, as I have since the beginning of that claim, that it is simply a distraction. I don't think that the pro-choice crowd CAN answer this, or possibly deny it:
Now, the burden of proof, to prove that a fetus is NOT a human, MUST REST WITH YOU, and everyone who is not pro-life. Until you can prove that a fetus is not a living human being, and not just rest on opinion (which you admit that you do), then you are irresponsibly risking mass murder. I am still waiting for that proof. Not opinion. Proof. As soon as the proof is laid down, I will be pro-choice. Until that proof is given, the only responsible and ethical position on abortion is AGAINST.I'd love to hear a pro-choicer provide evidence that the unique unborn human being is not a human being, or if there is a concession that NO evidence exists, explain why it is ethically superior to support abortion when it very well could be the murder of a baby. I want the burden of proof satisfied, or the burden of proof ethically shifted away from showing that this is not a person.

As soon as I demanded proof that this was not baby murdering, fits were had, and the focus was shifted.

Post by Patty

MyTie, a bit out of left field here, but can i ask your thoughts on Euthanasia?

Before this goes nuts:

Do you mean Euthanasia, or Assisted Suicide? The latter is at the request of the patient, while the former is someone else deciding to kill someone "to end their pain." I don't know a whole lot of people who would agree that someone else should be able to end their life without their permission, if this outside person had made a judgement that they would be better off dead. Using the wrong terminology will make this debate twice as long and complicated, as people try to figure out what the other side means.

The former is already partially in effect by making the choice to turn off people's ventilators.

Post by 204878

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 164232

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 865056

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 865056

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by MyTie

Point being: MyTie, I think you might think of yourself a really civilized guy when it comes to debate, but you do insult people. Regardless of whether or not "he started it," it's uncivilized.

Calling someone's argument "flippant"... saying that they aren't based in "reality". These are insults? If you consider these tame comments to be insulting, then you need thicker skin. It would be akin to me crying about you calling me "uncivilized". That is a negative thing, but like my comments, isn't an insult.

Further, I never claimed that "he started it". I never claimed that anyone started it. I claim that this is a blatant attempt to dodge the actual debate, and distract from the actual argument I made by arguing against me personally. Stop trying to make me into the bogeyman, and simply address my argument. That's known as the burden of proof fallacy. You're the one making the claim that it is a living human being when it is not universally considered to be so. The burden of proof lies with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies It's one of the first several.No no. Pro choicers are making the claim that the being is NOT a living human being, therefore abortion is acceptable. The "neutral" position here, is pro life, because that is what the body naturally does. The abortion is the act to be undertaken, and is the one that is claiming things in order to be acted. The burden of proof rests squarely in the pro choice lap, as it should. The consequences of the pro-choice position are too grave.

Post by 865056

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by MyTie

I insulted you, but tried to do it in a kind way.Pft. Whatever. It doesn't matter. Just drop it and go back to the topic.Burden of Proof Fallacy: I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.This is an example of it.
The neutral position is not relevant to the fallacy, but would still not be the neutral position, as pro-life means to oppose abortion, and opposition is not neutral. I would hope that you wouldn't genuinely change your position if a fetus was proven to not be a living human being.

The definition of living and life is ambiguous. The definition of person is ambiguous when it comes to this too. It can't perfectly and ultimately argued that a fetus is a living human person. I'm not worried about it being unprovable though, as I don't think the argument "it's not human or alive" is any good. It would still become one.

This is quite a convoluted mess. I'm not even sure of how to approach it. I'll just make an example of how I view your argument:

It isn't universally accepted (your requirement for the need of burden of proof) that Jews are humans. There are some people who attempt to dispose of Jews, who do not believe that Jews are living human beings. If you are opposed to this, please satisfy the burden of proof (which rests with you since you would be the one with the claim) that they are living human beings. Keep in mind that living and human are ambiguous, so you cannot prove this.

This is the format of your argument, yes? That if people are killing people, that is acceptable unless you can prove they are wrong, and you can't.

Post by 865056

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by MyTie

Post by 865056

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by woohaa

No heart or brain in a plant either, a soul in anything (depending on definition).
Edit: You asked why. People think life starts at conception because that's when it starts development into a human. Also because life is such a broad term, as you said, that they can get away with saying that, certain definitions of life agree with life starting at conception.

Not technically. Killing a human is murder. A sperm is not considered a human being. There are many different definitions of life, and a sperm isn't necessarily even considered alive.

So in this case murder is specifically applied to humans, so at the point of conception we now consider the fertilized egg human? I'm not 100% sure if i agree with that argument but i can see the thought process. As for the sperm not being alive, there is a large christian community that will fight you on that comment but obviously i'm not apart of that.

It is illegal, in many places. So you think everything that isn't illegal should stay that way? Because you can't oppose something that isn't already illegal?

You could oppose it and you could tell them what they're doing is wrong but it's an opinion and doesn't make it fact. There's a very large grey area when it comes to abortion. So in that sense i don't feel it's my place to say that it's right or wrong or whether they should or shouldn't be able to do it. There's still a lot that needs to be determined and set in stone. You don't get the same back and forth argumenting when someone robs a bank or shoots someone. When new arguments and scientific findings are provided then maybe i'd change my position.

Are you saying insects, animals and plants aren't alive? They are considered to be alive. Also, the ambiguous definition is life, not murder. Murder mean to kill another human being.

No i'm saying they are alive and that humans kill living things everyday without remorse or consideration to the fact that it is a living thing. But because of religion and our societies belief that HUMAN life is precious we believe that a human's life is more valuable then say an animals. If there was no religion and our societies beliefs were more similar to say an ant colony, there would be no abortion issue. A single ant's life is worth a fraction of the colonies and they will willingly sacrifice one for the good of the colony.

I understand why we feel that way and i'm not a vegetarian or anything, but basically i'm someone that can step back and look at things with an unbiased 3rd person view. Also, i like to understand every point and argument of an issue. I'm not here to fight for my cause or to anger anyone but to understand your train of thought and gain perspective on your or anyones views. Although i do thank you on how you replied to my post. very informative.

Post by 865056

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by MyTie

I am not saying killing or abortion is acceptable since it can't be proven wrong though. I think you are trying to do the strawman with me.

No. I'm arguing that abortion is unacceptable until it can be proven right. You've twisted it around somehow to say that pro-lifers should have to prove that abortion is not wrong.

You have been saying for pages upon pages that the burden of proof lies with the pro-choicers to prove that a fetus developed by a man and woman is a living human being. That is what we've been talking about and what you have been saying. The right or wrongness of abortion does not apply to the burden of proof because it is not measurable by scientific truth or falseness.

Edit: I'd be curious to see where I argued that the proof required of you is about the rightness or wrongness in terms of morals of abortion (instead of whether the fetus is a living human being), though. Also I edited my last post at the very bottom, if it intrigues you at all to talk about it.

You're seeing my arguments as too personal. I think this started when Adamsm stated that it was his opinion that the unborn baby is not a living human being. However, it really doesn't matter what I did in this debate, or what was said at any point. Absent of us, and of this thread, is it more ethical to require pro-choicers to prove that the fetus is not a living human being, or is it more ethical to require pro-lifers to prove that the fetus is a living human being?

As society grows and changes, so do morals. There is no perfect right or perfect wrong in morals. We used to have slaves. That was considered totally fine. However, much of that has changed. It used to be okay to kill people for having a different religion. Much of that has changed as well. Women used to not get to vote and that was considered standard, but it changed. My point is that something doesn't need to have provable value in morals for it to matter. I can see abortion going the pro-life way or the pro-choice way in the future.
I strongly disagree with this statement. It was never morally "okay to kill people for having a different religion". It may have been socially acceptable, but I don't believe that morals are drawn from social opinion. Slavery might have been considered "totally fine", but being considered totally fine, and being totally fine, are two very different things.

Post by woohaa

As society grows and changes, so do morals. There is no perfect right or perfect wrong in morals. We used to have slaves. That was considered totally fine. However, much of that has changed. It used to be okay to kill people for having a different religion. Much of that has changed as well. Women used to not get to vote and that was considered standard, but it changed. My point is that something doesn't need to have provable value in morals for it to matter. I can see abortion going the pro-life way or the pro-choice way in the future.

I totally agree with this paragraph. especially your last statement however i think it will lean more towards pro-life. Civil rights has changed drastically over the last few centuries, but the value of human life has only been going in one direction. With the exception of certain countries that think their race or religion gives them the right to dominate or kill people they consider lesser then them.

I guess the big question is what needs to happen for pro-life to get a nice big shove in the right direction. Does the government need to decide that at the point of conception, the fertilized egg is now considered a living human that not only has the right to live but civil rights? hmmm and how do you go about getting the government to adhere to that way of thinking?

Post by 865056

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by gamerunknown

Post by MyTie

I think the only reason you or I or anyone thinks it's not okay now is because society has told us it's not okay.

Or we've had the opportunity to question the morality both of the society we live in and historical moralities and can judge them using an independent scale? MyTie is arguing that something that is currently legal should be illegal and he holds that other things that are illegal should be legal: on Kohlberg's scale of moral reasoning, that's higher than the first few stages at least.

As for the sperm not being alive, there is a large christian community that will fight you on that comment but obviously i'm not apart of that.

I don't think there's much argument that the sperm has some but not all qualities of other living cells (for example, it only has half the chromosomes of other living cells because it divides by meiosis). I don't think that it's necessarily Christians that would argue one way or another, unless they believe in "pre-formationism", which I highly doubt many Christians do any more.

Also, I'd be interested in where you think it is necessary to end a human life. There are instances where it would reduce suffering, sure... (say, someone in a large amount of pain, or someone that wanted to shoot a large number of people). I don't think they're absolutely necessary though.

I'm going to agree here. Society has never defined my morals for me. If society does define what is right and wrong, then the holocaust was right in 1940s German society. Mao Zedong's genocide was "a-ok". The dear leader is justified in countrywide repression. South African condition of life is par for the course. I don't buy all that. We, as individuals, should expect a better standard of morals out of our society, not accepting our society as the standard for morals. Empathy exists with or without society teachings. It is when we ignore our empathy, due to pack mentality, or peer pressure, or selfishness, that we are capable of horrible things. We are born with a sense of morality. I've seen it in my son before he could walk. Anyway, do I seem like the kind of person that buys whatever society is dishing out? Or does it seem like I'm the kind of person that questions what society dishes out even if it is innocuous?

As for this "Christians defending sperm", I think you mean Catholics, not Christians. Pretty big difference.

Abortion Debate

Post Reply