Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 12:39 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An argument against elective abortion
#21
RE: An argument against elective abortion
(December 3, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Actually you can catch many more flies with bullshit.

Considering my people are masters of bullshit, it suddenly becomes clear why I'm constantly surrounded by creepers.
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#22
RE: An argument against elective abortion
As others, including theVOID and DP, have said, membership of the species homo sapiens does not automatically confer moral status. Rather, it ought to be non-arbitrary factors like the being's ability to conceive itself as existing over time, sentience, etc. So I take issue with Premise 1.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken

'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.

'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain

'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
Reply
#23
RE: An argument against elective abortion
(December 3, 2010 at 12:06 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote:
(December 3, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Actually you can catch many more flies with bullshit.

Considering my people are masters of bullshit, it suddenly becomes clear why I'm constantly surrounded by creepers.

Yeah...you guys know what you're good at.


Where have I heard that before?
Reply
#24
RE: An argument against elective abortion
(December 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
(December 3, 2010 at 12:06 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Considering my people are masters of bullshit, it suddenly becomes clear why I'm constantly surrounded by creepers.

Yeah...you guys know what you're good at.

Where have I heard that before?

Lewis Black on his take on the old testament.

Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Pastafarian
Reply
#25
RE: An argument against elective abortion
(December 4, 2010 at 10:32 am)leo-rcc Wrote:
(December 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
(December 3, 2010 at 12:06 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Considering my people are masters of bullshit, it suddenly becomes clear why I'm constantly surrounded by creepers.

Yeah...you guys know what you're good at.

Where have I heard that before?

Lewis Black on his take on the old testament.

Also a subtle jab at me repeating him and myself?
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#26
RE: An argument against elective abortion
No, just answering the question.

Sometimes when one hears hoof beats, it's okay to think Horse instead of Zebra.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Pastafarian
Reply
#27
RE: An argument against elective abortion
(December 2, 2010 at 6:46 am)Tiberius Wrote: Whilst your argument is indeed valid, the problem I find is with premise 2. You say it is correct semantically and genetically. I would argue that since we all vary genetically, using that as a basis isn't that powerful of an argument. Semantically, it depends on who you talk to; most pro-choice people would argue that an embryo isn't properly considered a human being until it can survive without the mother

First, the fact that "we all vary genetically" does not affect the argument (or second premise); despite the genetic differences between you and I, we are both still members of the species Homo sapiens. Second, attention should be given to the fact that my argument is not predicated on humans as 'beings' or 'persons'; the one is a point of philosophy, the other is a point of law, but my argument is predicated on a point of science, that the unborn belong to the species Homo sapiens.

Tiberius Wrote:Most pro-life people would argue that it's a human from conception.

I should hope that both sides argue the same thing, since all available scientific evidence indicates that two members of one species reproduce members of that species.




(December 2, 2010 at 6:47 am)theVOID Wrote: Not sure persuasion necessitates validity or soundness.

A point which I had already addressed in my original post.

theVOID Wrote:And what is your proof for the first premise? Euthenasia, for instance, is the deliberate killing of an inocent human yet not necessarily morally wrong.

An undercutter which I had already addressed in my original post.

theVOID Wrote:Also, this could quite quickly become a debate about what it mean to be human; thus, you'll need to clarify that.

I did, in my original post.

theVOID Wrote:Assuming that you just mean 'Homo sapeins', I would have to ask why does this argument stop at humans? What makes humanity special?

It is not about Homo sapiens being special; it is about Homo sapiens being the subject. It is a fallacy to construe an argument against the killing of X innocent creatures as being in any way for the killing of all ~X innocent creatures.

theVOID Wrote:Is turning off the life support of someone unlikely to regain any normality not the deliberate killing of an innocent human?

Euthanasia is an undercutter which I had already addressed in my original post.

theVOID Wrote:If there are any exceptions to the first premise, then it is not necessarily true that the deliberate killing of an inocent human is wrong, so your argument is not sound in that respect.

You risk committing the Special Pleading fallacy here. If elective abortions do not qualify under a defined exception, then the argument holds. (For example, you referenced euthanasia, that turning off the life support of someone "unlikely to regain any normality" is arguably a moral good. That may be so, but it is an exception that does not include elective abortions; the probability of normality for the unborn is very high after nine months of life support.)




(December 2, 2010 at 10:31 am)Chuck Wrote: - argumentum ad populum
- presupposition fallacy
- equivocation fallacy
- continuum fallacy

Ipse dixit. A fallacy is not proven by force of assertion.




(December 2, 2010 at 1:28 pm)Demonaura Wrote: One thing I would like to see established is the definition of morally wrong here. ... We need to decide what makes an act moral or immoral before we can put out a blanket statement like the first premise in a logical statement.

The argument does not depend on any one moral theory. It suffices that the reader simply has one. The only people who reject the first premise (i.e., who think the deliberate killing of innocent humans is not morally wrong) are those who reject morality as either meaningless or irrelevant. The argument can be evaluated even under consequentialist moral theories, like your Fat Man test speaks to. But as I have pointed out elsewhere, any exceptions to the first premise that elective abortions do not qualify under (e.g., euthanasia) means the argument holds.




(December 2, 2010 at 3:45 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: The fetus isn't a human. It's a potential human.

Interesting. What species, then, might a 28-week old fetus belong to?

DeistPaladin Wrote:Without sentience, there are no questions of morality.

Again, interesting. So on your view, sexually molesting a coma patient is not a moral issue.




(December 3, 2010 at 12:08 am)padraic Wrote: The first premise is an absolute moral imperative, which I reject outright. For example, I fully support voluntary euthanasia.

Euthanasia is an undercutter I had already addressed in my original post.

padraic Wrote:The second premise an opinion based on religious doctrine, not evidence.

Incorrect. That the unborn belong to the species Homo sapiens is a point of science, not religion, philosophy, or law.

padraic Wrote:I'm aware of no evidence that a foetus is human being before it is viable ex utero.

What scientific evidence determines that a fetus is not of the species Homo sapiens prior to 23 weeks gestation?




(December 3, 2010 at 7:26 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: As others (including theVOID and DeistPaladin) have said, membership in the species Homo sapiens does not automatically confer moral status. Rather, it ought to be non-arbitrary factors like the being's ability to conceive itself as existing over time, sentience, etc. So I take issue with Premise 1.

In what way is 'species' an arbitrary category but 'self-awareness' is not?
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
Reply
#28
RE: An argument against elective abortion
Arcanus Wrote:....but my argument is predicated on a point of science, that the unborn belong to the species Homo sapiens.

So why are homo sapiens so important then.

Reply
#29
RE: An argument against elective abortion
(December 5, 2010 at 8:33 am)Arcanus Wrote: It is not about Homo sapiens being special; it is about Homo sapiens being the subject. It is a fallacy to construe an argument against the killing of X innocent creatures as being in any way for the killing of all ~X innocent creatures.

In that case, to avoid being arbitrary, you would have to say that it's wrong to kill any being with the same attributes as an embryo at any stage, which would probably include bacteria at the earliest stage. To avoid this problem, you must show the moral significance of homo sapiens.

Quote:Interesting. What species, then, might a 28-week old fetus belong to?

It is not a human in a moral sense, in any meaningful sense. A dead body of a human is genetically a member of homo sapiens, but we do not accord it the same rights as a living, fully developed human being.

Quote:Again, interesting. So on your view, sexually molesting a coma patient is not a moral issue.

That would depend on a) the reactions of those close to the patient and b) the chances of recovery of the patient and that he or she would find out. Otherwise, no, from my view, not particularly.

Quote: In what way is 'species' an arbitrary category but 'self-awareness' is not?

Because self-awareness provides a being with the desire to continue living, and with the capacity to make plans for the future which would be thwarted if it were killed. That's from a utilitarian perspective. Unless you deny that a stone is morally worth less than a cat, you can't deny that it's a being's sentience that counts. What then surely makes a human worth more than a cat is his or her rich emotional life, interests in living to achieve plans, etc., all of which is dependent on self-awareness.

Species, however, is entirely arbitrary. If you disagree, you must show why.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken

'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.

'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain

'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
Reply
#30
RE: An argument against elective abortion
(December 4, 2010 at 10:46 am)thesummerqueen Wrote:
(December 4, 2010 at 10:32 am)leo-rcc Wrote:
(December 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
(December 3, 2010 at 12:06 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Considering my people are masters of bullshit, it suddenly becomes clear why I'm constantly surrounded by creepers.

Yeah...you guys know what you're good at.

Where have I heard that before?

Lewis Black on his take on the old testament.

Also a subtle jab at me repeating him and myself?



( Note to self: Sarcasm never comes through on the internet.)

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  J.J. Thompson's Violinist Thought Experiment Concerning Abortion vulcanlogician 29 1591 January 3, 2022 at 10:27 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  [Serious] An Argument Against Hedonistic Moral Realism SenseMaker007 25 2862 June 19, 2019 at 7:21 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Argument against Intelligent Design Jrouche 27 3057 June 2, 2019 at 5:04 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  After birth abortion? Mystical 109 9000 August 19, 2018 at 11:47 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice Edwardo Piet 53 7868 June 4, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God Edwardo Piet 58 13609 May 2, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense. Mystic 158 67818 December 29, 2017 at 7:21 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  2 Birds, 1 Stone: An argument against free will and Aquinas' First Way Mudhammam 1 1147 February 20, 2016 at 8:02 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Abortion -cpr on the fetus? answer-is-42 153 16077 July 5, 2015 at 12:50 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  An argument against God Mystic 37 8688 October 20, 2014 at 3:31 pm
Last Post: TreeSapNest



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)