Abortion is morally wrong

[Anomalocaris]

Thats not an argument chuck, Ive responded to your criticisms in earlier posts. Now all Im getting is (for the most part) personal attacks and false assertions.

Nor is yours. You attempt to assert by stretching definition and call that a argument. We don't buy your definition. Nor do we buy the notion that fundamental issues can be settled by mere definition.

[Jackalope]

Once again, Im moving from the assumption that objective morality exists.

And what is it about assumptions that must be true in order for an argument to be sound?

If we don't assume that, than genital mutilation, murder, ect. is morally permissible.

You're going to have to connect the dots here. This is about as naked of an assertion as I've ever seen.

[Arthur123]

I stated my argument, to my knowledge no defeaters have knocked down my thesis. Therefore, it stands.

---

Cthulhu you do know what objective morality is right? All I'm basing my argument on is that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being

[JuliaL]

2. A fetus is an innocent human being

Arbitrary and unsupported assertion.
Evidence counter to this assertion comes from online dictionaries and repositories as to what a 'human being' is.
Oxford Dictionaries

A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Dictonary.com

any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Where an individual is:

1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.

Which makes the above definition circular. However from the same source:

5. Biology .
a. a single organism capable of independent existence.

Even the first theistic reference that Google listed for me does not grant human being status to a single cell.
Assemblies of God: Enrichment Journal

An embryo in the earliest stages of development is a living, multicellular organism with a genetic code unique from the genetic code of the mother and father of that embryo. An embryo that develops from the fertilization of a human egg and a human sperm is a human embryo. So, an embryo is a human life. With the right conditions for further development, a healthy human embryo will develop the secondary characteristics of self-awareness, rationality, and capacity for language that collectively distinguish human beings from other living organisms.

The closest they come to granting human being status for the fertilized egg is:

Psalm 139:13–16 shows that God knows us even at the earliest stages of embryological development, before our organs have formed and our cells have differentiated.

However, this would not grant special privilege as the whole point of the theist's imaginary friend being omniscient is that He allegedly knows everything and knowing you before you were born isn't stated as any sort of special case.

Your modus ponens fails on the second premise as no one, not even your friends, is willing to grant your extreme, unreasonably inclusive definition of what constitutes a human being.

[Ravenshire]

Once again, Im moving from the assumption that objective morality exists.

Who defines objective morality?

If we don't assume that, than genital mutilation, murder, ect. is morally permissible.

Non sequitur. Subjective morality works just fine for determining these thing as morally reprehensible.

Your question has nothing to do with the discussion. Im sorry..

Her question has everything to do with your position on abortion.

Are you ever going to address the rights of a fetus vs. the rights of children not to be born to drug addicted or violent parents? You claim abortion is always wrong. Ever even seen a fetal alcohol baby?

[Anomalocaris]

Once again, Im moving from the assumption that objective morality exists. If we don't assume that, than genital mutilation, murder, ect. is morally permissible. Your question has nothing to do with the discussion. Im sorry..

Incorrect.

1. If objective morality exists, you don't have any more accurate or reliable access to it then anyone else. Its objective existence, to say nothing of what form it take, is therefore a totally unverifiable notion for all practical purposes. Its objective existence is utterly indistinguishable for its objective nonexistence. It only serves as a wretched tool, a false flag, by those like you who seek bogus authority for nothing more than the better asserting of your own pet, subjective, preference.

2. If no objective morality exists, it does not mean genital multiplication is morally permissible. It only means it is not objectibvely impermissible. It is as a matter of fact overwhelmingly regarded as subjectively impermissible.

[Jackalope]

I stated my argument, to my knowledge no defeaters have knocked down my thesis. Therefore, it stands.

Hubris.

Cthulhu you do know what objective morality is right?

Yes - and I'm not convinced that any such thing exists.

Do you?

[Ravenshire]

I stated my argument, to my knowledge no defeaters have knocked down my thesis. Therefore, it stands.

You really don't understand the burden of proof, do you?

[Arthur123]

Julia, your quotes support my original thesis. A man women or child belonging to the species Homo sapien. Than it shows certain characteristics of how you might distinguish one epistemologically. In my argument, I've stated a genetically complete organism belonging to the species homo sapien is a sufficient condition for human rights. Your bolded definition once again confuse ontology with functionality.
Kindest regards,

---

If you don't believe objective morality exists than why were you earlier referencing women's bodily rights?

[Anomalocaris]

I stated my argument, to my knowledge no defeaters have knocked down my thesis. Therefore, it stands.

---

Cthulhu you do know what objective morality is right? All I'm basing my argument on is that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being

Again, it's not for you to decide, your patting yourself on the back notwithstanding.

---

Julia, your quotes support my original thesis. A man women or child belonging to the species Homo sapien. Than it shows certain characteristics of how you might distinguish one epistemologically. In my argument, I've stated a genetically complete organism belonging to the species homo sapien is a sufficient condition for human rights. Your bolded definition once again confuse ontology with functionality.
Kindest regards,

---

If you don't believe objective morality exists than why were you earlier referencing women's bodily rights?

A zygote is not yet an organism.


A minimum requirement for an organism is homeostasis. A zygote can not perform it and requires its mother to do the basic job for it.

For the purpose of argument, even of zygote was capable of all requirements of a functioning organism, it does not follow that its existence is sufficient condition for it to be granted human rights. Human rights is an artificial concept conceived for the better ordering of a society of post-natal homosapiens. To claim an artificial concept as if it has an objective existence, and to assert somehow its powers reaches objectively extends beyond the purposes for which it was created, is obsurd to the extreme.