Modus ponens is not a scientific argument for or even against a damned fucking thing. It isn't even a good argument as to what to have for dinner.

I once had someone use the word "priori" to argue science for the existence for their god. Didn't work for them and non scientific dead languages do not constitute science.

(June 21, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Brian my argument has nothing to do with religion and is based on the right or wrongness of an action.

[emphasis is mine]
Which you get from your religion, along with your fairy tale of objective morals.

(June 21, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I'm using objective morality and values

No such thing as objective morality.

(June 21, 2014 at 5:38 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Brian, I am arguing moral truths here.

No such thing as a "moral truth" either

(June 21, 2014 at 5:56 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: It is when you kill someone who you are responsible for putting there in the first place.

Since you keep ignoring me, I'll ask again. Have you done any of the volunteer work? Do you have any idea what a sick bastard your beliefs make you look like when you consider the actual plight of unwanted kids?

(June 21, 2014 at 5:43 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I fight with words and reasoning. That is all

Nope, all I am hearing are the same bullshit arguments from other people. "Life begins at conception", nope, sperm and eggs are alive before they meet.

All I am hearing from you is the same bullshit I hear from others "I don't like it".

There is more than simply a fetus or baby involved and no fucking doctor, abortion doctor or any type of doctor for that mater is going to use "modus ponens" to make medical decisions. They make medical decisions based on their training and consent of the patient.

And even outside the issue of abortion, I DONT WANT any doctor, working on me, or my family or friends that is making any decisions without my consent and if I do give my consent, I don't want them making any decisions about what they do to me on their personal bias. I want it strictly based on their training.

You don't like girls, women having abortions, that is all you are arguing.

(June 21, 2014 at 6:05 pm)JuliaL Wrote: Lots of cells are live, genetically human and capable of becoming adults with appropriate treatment. Why are you singling out the fertilized egg for your border between morally protected and not?

Because that's what he thinks gawd told him.

---

(June 21, 2014 at 5:56 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: It is when you kill someone who you are responsible for putting there in the first place.

So, you believe that smokers should be allowed to seek treatment for lung cancer or not?!? Your beliefs are getting kinda confusing. On one hand, if it's my fault, it's ok to seek treatment. On the other, it's not. WTF?!?

(June 21, 2014 at 5:56 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: It is when you kill someone who you are responsible for putting there in the first place.

Finally we get to the gist of your argument. Slut-shaming. Fuck off, Artie.

Women have rights in the modern world. Sucks to be you.

(June 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: No I don't believe anything needs to be added to my definition of a genetically complete human being. If fetus' weren't alive than you wouldn't be able to kill it. Since I don't find your dead corpse argument effective I'm not sure what your arguing at this point.

I honestly don't know how I could be any clearer, here. Everyone else reading this, is this that inscrutable of an idea? Does anyone get what I'm getting at?

Arthur, your argument is that a fetus is a genetically complete human being, and therefore it's impermissible to kill it. I say that a corpse is also a genetically complete human being, which is true, and that you aren't concerned with killing them, which is also true. So now, the set "genetically complete human beings," contains two different items- fetuses and corpses- but only one for whom you give the right to life. Therefore, it doesn't follow that "genetically complete human beings" all have a right to life, because you don't even think so within the context of the argument you're making. If this were a Venn diagram, we'd have a circle for "genetically complete human beings," and a circle for "beings possessing the right to life," and you're arguing that the middle of those two circles contains the item, fetuses. With me so far?

What we've established is that "genetically complete," is a necessary attribute for a human being with a right to life, but not the only attribute. There's more to it than that, because you don't extend the right to life to everything contained within the "genetically complete human" set. What extra things are there? Well, life, for one. So while you're saying the only required attribute something needs for the right to life is to be genetically human, in practice you're adding in the extra attribute, "living," on top of that.

I just want you to acknowledge that there's more to your own argument than genetics. Think of it like a recipe: flour is required for making a cake, but it's not the only ingredient. By continually asserting that genetics is enough, you're basically pretending that flour is a cake, which is a ridiculous position.

I could see this idiot, "Sorry you got raped 12 year old, but you have to have the baby". Sorry your brother raped you 11 year old, but you have to have the baby. Sorry but the doctor says even though the complication might kill you lady, the baby is more important. Sorry the kid is brain damaged but you have to raise the baby even though you don't have the means." "Sorry your kid will live in abject poverty but you have to have the baby".

---

(June 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: No I don't believe anything needs to be added to my definition of a genetically complete human being. If fetus' weren't alive than you wouldn't be able to kill it. Since I don't find your dead corpse argument effective I'm not sure what your arguing at this point.

I honestly don't know how I could be any clearer, here. Everyone else reading this, is this that inscrutable of an idea? Does anyone get what I'm getting at?

Arthur, your argument is that a fetus is a genetically complete human being, and therefore it's impermissible to kill it. I say that a corpse is also a genetically complete human being, which is true, and that you aren't concerned with killing them, which is also true. So now, the set "genetically complete human beings," contains two different items- fetuses and corpses- but only one for whom you give the right to life. Therefore, it doesn't follow that "genetically complete human beings" all have a right to life, because you don't even think so within the context of the argument you're making. If this were a Venn diagram, we'd have a circle for "genetically complete human beings," and a circle for "beings possessing the right to life," and you're arguing that the middle of those two circles contains the item, fetuses. With me so far?

What we've established is that "genetically complete," is a necessary attribute for a human being with a right to life, but not the only attribute. There's more to it than that, because you don't extend the right to life to everything contained within the "genetically complete human" set. What extra things are there? Well, life, for one. So while you're saying the only required attribute something needs for the right to life is to be genetically human, in practice you're adding in the extra attribute, "living," on top of that.

I just want you to acknowledge that there's more to your own argument than genetics. Think of it like a recipe: flour is required for making a cake, but it's not the only ingredient. By continually asserting that genetics is enough, you're basically pretending that flour is a cake, which is a ridiculous position.

I don't even know why anyone thinks he is worth entertaining, part of his argument was "modus ponens ". I doubt a doctor working on my heart is going to be thinking of "modus ponens", and I am certain I would not want a doctor thinking about anything but his training at that point. So I do not see how even "modus ponens" applies even to an abortion doctor.

But you are right, everything he is trying to argue is taking ONE cherry picked aspect of a very complex decision and extrapolating a decision based on ONE factor. No fucking doctor I would want is going to view a complex body simplistically and base their decisions on their own personal bias.

Brian, it seems to me that you're too emotionally invested in this subject... maybe you should take a time out.

Arthur, modus ponens, huh? I had to look it up... P imples Q, so if P is true, then Q is true.
What's your P? that a fetus is human individual? And it's wrong to kill this individual?

Hmmm.... I wonder... Do you own a gun?

(June 21, 2014 at 5:56 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: It is when you kill someone who you are responsible for putting there in the first place.

Is jacking off murder? If not, why not?

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that he needs to see that he has an uphill battle and absolutely even outside the context of this thread he will not get what he wants in trying to outlaw it. Because if he tries he will certainly not be facing only me. But no I am not taking him seriously in the fact that I think he is any real threat to the issue.

Don't think the words out of any doctor's mouth to any patient whatever they are seeing a doctor for is "Jenny, do you know what modus ponens is?" So no, in that context I am certainly not taking hims seriously. Although someone sold him this slick argument and now he will use it to try to peal off someone else as gullible as he was. His problem is he came to the wrong place and thought it would be easy.