(June 9, 2014 at 3:03 pm)alpha male Wrote: How much support does one need? As you argue that your position isn't opinion, I wouldn't expect any dissent.

Quite a bit, actually. If 99% of medical biologists say one thing and 1% say another, I think there's consensus there.

Quote:And you'd allow the killing of what you consider to be a person with a right to life during this gray area.

It's inconsistent to say you accept 21 weeks to be conservative, when really you mean 24 - 28 weeks.

[/quote]
I didn't see your point. You're picking at nits on an issue I've already said is a gray area.

Enjoy, if it makes you feel better about your jack-booted stance that women should be ruled over by you personally because of your arbitrary ideas about when life begins.

Remember, when in trouble, "both sides, both sides, both sides".

(June 9, 2014 at 3:16 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Quite a bit, actually. If 99% of medical biologists say one thing and 1% say another, I think there's consensus there.

Me too, but as you haven't shown that 99% of medical biologists say one thing, this is irrelevant.

Quote:I didn't see your point. You're picking at nits on an issue I've already said is a gray area.

If it's a gray area due to it being opinion, that would be understandable, but you insist that your position is not opinion.

If you therefore mean that the point at which a baby thinks is a gray area due to current technological limitations to our understanding, then you would set the limit at the earliest date if you were a moral person. Indeed you claim to go to 21 weeks to be conservative. But, you then say that you'd accept abortion up to the beginning of the third trimester, which is several weeks later. This indicates that your position on thought is simply a pretext to justify the status quo.

(June 9, 2014 at 3:54 pm)alpha male Wrote: Me too, but as you haven't shown that 99% of medical biologists say one thing, this is irrelevant.

I've asked a question. This guy has offered an opinion that is way outside what I've studied in mainstream textbooks and it staggers belief that a pre-fetus embryo is self-aware. Until I see others verifying his findings, I'll continue to regard him as the fringe.

Quote:If it's a gray area due to it being opinion, that would be understandable, but you insist that your position is not opinion.

That our moral obligations is toward self-aware beings and not toward inanimate objects or living beings that aren't self-aware is an opinion I supported with logical arguments way back here. This is not mere opinion.

logical argument > someone's opinion

And since my timeline more-or-less dovetails with the alternate perspective, that viability is the standard, it's pretty much settled.

Quote:If you therefore mean that the point at which a baby thinks is a gray area due to current technological limitations to our understanding, then you would set the limit at the earliest date if you were a moral person.

Actually, the play-it-safe position is not to legislate away someone else's decision until the facts are in.

But do keep saying my opinions are arbitrary. It helps you maintain the "c'mon, both sides do it" rationalization.

(June 9, 2014 at 5:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I've asked a question. This guy has offered an opinion that is way outside what I've studied in mainstream textbooks and it staggers belief that a pre-fetus embryo is self-aware. Until I see others verifying his findings, I'll continue to regard him as the fringe.

This guy has an opinion. You have a differing opinion. Until you support that 99% agree with you, this will continue to be a matter of opinion.

Quote:That our moral obligations is toward self-aware beings and not toward inanimate objects or living beings that aren't self-aware is an opinion I supported with logical arguments way back here. This is not mere opinion.

logical argument > someone's opinion

Not when the logic stems from premises which are bare assertions and appeals to self-evidence:

Quote:Consciousness is what determines our moral obligations toward one another. This is evident in how we have no such obligations toward rocks.

Quote:And since my timeline more-or-less dovetails with the alternate perspective, that viability is the standard, it's pretty much settled.

Again, IMO it's immoral to to accept "more-or-less" and "pretty much" as standards regarding the question of terminating a human life.

Quote:Actually, the play-it-safe position is not to legislate away someone else's decision until the facts are in.

That is the expedient position. The moral position is to go with the earliest point at which your standard might be met until we know better.

(June 10, 2014 at 8:18 am)alpha male Wrote: Not when the logic stems from premises which are bare assertions and appeals to self-evidence:

I don't think my case did. Still waiting for you to present any logical arguments behind your arbitrary human DNA standard.

Quote:Again, IMO it's immoral to to accept "more-or-less" and "pretty much" as standards regarding the question of terminating a human life.

Human life hasn't been proven to exist prior to 3rd trimester.

Quote:That is the expedient position. The moral position is to go with the earliest point at which your standard might be met until we know better.

Actually, it's immoral to impose on the life and liberty of another unless you know you have cause.

"I'm torn on abortions. I'm all in favor of killing babies, but then you're giving women a choice."

(June 10, 2014 at 8:29 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 8:18 am)alpha male Wrote: Not when the logic stems from premises which are bare assertions and appeals to self-evidence:

I don't think my case did.

I quoted the opening premises from the post you link to. One is a bare assertion and the other is an appeal to self-evidence.

Quote:Human life hasn't been proven to exist prior to 3rd trimester.

You argued yourself that it exists by your own definition as early as 21 weeks, which is second trimester.

Quote:Actually, it's immoral to impose on the life and liberty of another unless you know you have cause.

Yet you would do so. You can't say when life begins with certainty, yet you'd prohibit abortion at 21 weeks at times, or 24-28 weeks at other times.

(June 10, 2014 at 11:52 am)alpha male Wrote: I quoted the opening premises from the post you link to. One is a bare assertion and the other is an appeal to self-evidence.

Well, at least your finally addressing my arguments instead of summarily dismissing them as just my opinion. Go on. More detail please.

Quote:You argued yourself that it exists by your own definition as early as 21 weeks, which is second trimester.

Are you seriously having trouble grasping the difference between "possibly" and "proven"?

Quote:Yet you would do so. You can't say when life begins with certainty, yet you'd prohibit abortion at 21 weeks at times, or 24-28 weeks at other times.

See the last 20 pages of our exchange.

(June 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Well, at least your finally addressing my arguments instead of summarily dismissing them as just my opinion. Go on. More detail please.

Bare assertion/opinion - "Consciousness is what determines our moral obligations toward one another."

Appeal to self evidence: "This is evident in how we have no such obligations toward rocks."

Also note that you're sloppy with your terms. You treat thought, consciousness, self-awareness and sentience as interchangeable. If you want to pretend you have a solid logical argument, at least define your terms. Most people don't think of a 21 - 28 week old fetus as self-aware.

Quote:Are you seriously having trouble grasping the difference between "possibly" and "proven"?

No, I'm having trouble with your using 21 weeks to be conservative, then flipping to third trimester when that's convenient. I'm also having trouble with your position that, given uncertainty in a question of choice v. life, you would err on the side of choice, yet consider yourself to be moral.