RE: Abortion is morally wrong
June 21, 2014 at 6:25 pm
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2014 at 6:32 pm by Brian37.)
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".
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.
(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.
