Abortion and Global warming

[Heywood]

It doesn't matter why I value the baby more. I do. I could value the baby more because it looks like me.

Your garage is on fire. It contains 2 cars, a Bentley and a Kia. You can only save one car. You value the Bentley more so you drive it out.

Was the Kia not as much of a car as the Bentley? Negative....both by their very essence are cars. How much value you place on a thing doesn't determine its essence.

The analogy doesn't work for a couple reasons:

The difference between a Bentley and a Kia invokes eugenics. You should make the automobiles have the same make and model. The following is what then needs to happen to make your analogy appropriate for the discussion.

Your analogy only works if one car is fully operable and the other is simply the blueprints, assembley instructions, and only a portion of the raw materials required.

The example does work. Bad Wolf's claim was that a baby has a stronger right to exist then a zygote because we value them more. I was showing him the state of possessing existence rights has nothing to do with value by showing him that the state of being a car has nothing to do with its value.

---

It is a consistent position, if you believe abortions will reduce overcrowding and therefore reduce the unhappiness, crime and pollution that comes with overcrowding for future people AND you also believe in cutting carbon emissions to slow down the greenhouse effect ALSO for the happiness of future generations. They both have the same result, happy people in the future.

The conclusion of this argument is that abortion isn't an inalienable right of the mother but rather a tool used by society to regulate its population.

[Bad Wolf]

The example does work. Bad Wolf's claim was that a baby has a stronger right to exist then a zygote because we value them more.

I didn't claim anything of the sort. I was just trying to ascertain where you stood on such an issue. Something I still haven't managed because you still haven't told me why you valued the baby over the foetus.

However, I do agree that a baby has a 'stronger right to exist' as you put it, but not because we value them more. But because it is no longer forced onto someone like a zygote would be. The mother could simply put the baby up for adoption unlike with a zygote where she would have to carry it around against her will for 9 months if abortion was illegal.

---

The conclusion of this argument is that abortion isn't an inalienable right of the mother but rather a tool used by society to regulate its population.

I hope you realise that everyone is using that as a joke. A ridiculous position to match your ridiculous position.

[Cato]

The example does work. Bad Wolf's claim was that a baby has a stronger right to exist then a zygote because we value them more. I was showing him the state of possessing existence rights has nothing to do with value by showing him that the state of being a car has nothing to do with its value.

You are still equivocating zygote and baby. I tried to make the distinction clear using your analogy by comparing a fully operable car with the stack of prints and incomplete collection of raw materials.

Do you understand the distinction or are you intentionally evading the obvious consideration?

[Heywood]

The example does work. Bad Wolf's claim was that a baby has a stronger right to exist then a zygote because we value them more. I was showing him the state of possessing existence rights has nothing to do with value by showing him that the state of being a car has nothing to do with its value.

You are still equivocating zygote and baby. I tried to make the distinction clear using your analogy by comparing a fully operable car with the stack of prints and incomplete collection of raw materials.

Do you understand the distinction or are you intentionally evading the obvious consideration?

You want to use my analogy to make a different point.....and that's perfectly okay. However it doesn't make the point I made moot or disappear. Further you using my analogy to make a different point doesn't estop me from defending my original point.

I ignored your point because it was superfluous. Is a baby a more developed human being then a zygote? Of course it is. Because the zygote is less developed does it make it not a human being? Of course not....if that were the case 2 year olds would not be human beings.

---

However, I do agree that a baby has a 'stronger right to exist' as you put it, but not because we value them more. But because it is no longer forced onto someone like a zygote would be. The mother could simply put the baby up for adoption unlike with a zygote where she would have to carry it around against her will for 9 months if abortion was illegal.

The notion of a "stronger right to exist" is ludicrous. Either a being has an inalienable right to exist or it does not.

One reason I value the baby more is because it is cuter than the zygote.

[Esquilax]

I ignored your point because it was superfluous. Is a baby a more developed human being then a zygote? Of course it is. Because the zygote is less developed does it make it not a human being? Of course not....if that were the case 2 year olds would not be human beings.

So what criteria are you using to determine humanity? As I mentioned in the other abortion thread, it can't solely be genetics because that makes a lot of things that aren't humans, human too. You seem to be just asserting that zygotes possess this attribute without any criteria that would point to that, nor anything other than special pleading to prevent us from extending that same attribute further back to the sperm and the egg, or forward to, say, human fingernails.

[Bad Wolf]

I ignored your point because it was superfluous. Is a baby a more developed human being then a zygote? Of course it is. Because the zygote is less developed does it make it not a human being? Of course not....if that were the case 2 year olds would not be human beings.

Interesting. So what is your definition of a human being? Because at the zygote stage, this human being is little more than a few cells isn't it?

The notion of a "stronger right to exist" is ludicrous. Either a being has an inalienable right to exist or it does not.

Your words....

One reason I value the baby more is because it is cuter than the zygote.

Since you wouldn't be able to actually see the zygote, I have a hard time believing that that is a serious answer.
Lets assume that you could see the zygote, what if the baby was ugly, like deformed ugly?

[Esquilax]

Since you wouldn't be able to actually see the zygote, I have a hard time believing that that is a serious answer.
Lets assume that you could see the zygote, what if the baby was ugly, like deformed ugly?

And the zygote turned out to be totally fucking adorable?

[Bad Wolf]

And the zygote turned out to be totally fucking adorable?

He's acting stupid, so I thought: better fight fire with fire.

[Esquilax]

And the zygote turned out to be totally fucking adorable?

He's acting stupid, so I thought: better fight fire with fire.

I understand, I just thought that a cute zygote was a funny mental image.

That, and I kinda want to hear an answer to the question too: it's really strange for someone to come in all holier than thou on the abortion issue and then rip the bottom right out of their own argument by even using the word "cute" when discussing their reasoning.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I ignored your point because it was superfluous. Is a baby a more developed human being then a zygote? Of course it is. Because the zygote is less developed does it make it not a human being? Of course not....if that were the case 2 year olds would not be human beings.

So what criteria are you using to determine humanity? As I mentioned in the other abortion thread, it can't solely be genetics because that makes a lot of things that aren't humans, human too. You seem to be just asserting that zygotes possess this attribute without any criteria that would point to that, nor anything other than special pleading to prevent us from extending that same attribute further back to the sperm and the egg, or forward to, say, human fingernails.

Again, I asked what a 'future person' was on page 1...