Why would people be against abortion?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by 2WheelGod
Now you are just saying that they are the same because you say they are the same, even though they are obviously not the same. Next you will be saying that a mushroom is the same as a kitten.
As I said just being silly for the sake of an argument.
As I said just being silly for the sake of an argument.
Original post by 2WheelGod
The argument here is that a bunch of unthinking, unfeeling cells is not a member of the human species in the way an adult is. You say they are but your argument is just "because I say so". You need a better argument than that. Especially when it is obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that the two things are not at all the same.
Not at all. I’m saying I’ve seen no justification why they’re different. “Anyone with an ounce of sense agrees with me” is not a justification.
You’ve mention its “unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells”. as a potential justification. But a person under general anaesthetic is also an unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells. If a foetus doesn’t deserve the right to life just because of that then neither does the anaesthetised person.
Original post by 2WheelGod
I can get a PhD in quantum physics. I just need the right conditions. By your argument I AM a expert quantum physicist and should have all the rights and benefits of one, and you must cal me Doctor 2WheelGod.
That doesn’t follow from my argument. I haven’t claimed that “a fertilised egg can develop into a fetus therefore it is a fetus”.
(edited 2 months ago)
Because I have a moral compass.
Original post by tazarooni89
I’m asking you to see if you really believe your own argument.
My own beliefs about abortion, which are independent of the personhood of a fetus, are not being discussed.
It is your argument I am interested in. You have demanded "iron clad" reasoning from others but haven't given any "iron clad" justification for why human life should be defined at fertilisation.
Original post by SHallowvale
My own beliefs about abortion, which are independent of the personhood of a fetus, are not being discussed.
It is your argument I am interested in. You have demanded "iron clad" reasoning from others but haven't given any "iron clad" justification for why human life should be defined at fertilisation.
It is your argument I am interested in. You have demanded "iron clad" reasoning from others but haven't given any "iron clad" justification for why human life should be defined at fertilisation.
Even if your views on abortion don’t depend on personhood, more generally your argument implies that you can take away anyone’s human rights by simply changing the definition of “human”. Do you believe this is valid?
I’m not particularly interested in wasting by time debating against an argument that you don’t believe yourself.
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
Not at all. I’m saying I’ve seen no justification why they’re different. “Anyone with an ounce of sense agrees with me” is not a justification.
You’ve mention its “unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells”. as a potential justification. But a person under general anaesthetic is also an unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells. If a foetus doesn’t deserve the right to life just because of that then neither does the anaesthetised person.
That doesn’t follow from my argument. I haven’t claimed that “a fertilised egg can develop into a fetus therefore it is a fetus”.
You’ve mention its “unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells”. as a potential justification. But a person under general anaesthetic is also an unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells. If a foetus doesn’t deserve the right to life just because of that then neither does the anaesthetised person.
That doesn’t follow from my argument. I haven’t claimed that “a fertilised egg can develop into a fetus therefore it is a fetus”.
It is a better justification that "because I say so".
try this puzzle I read somewhere and see whether you really think they are the same.
There is a fire at a fertility lab. In one room there is a case with 100 fertilised eggs. In another there is a small child. You can only save one. Which one do you save?
From what you say you must save the case of eggs and leave the child to burn to death. Sensible people would save the child. Which shows just how silly your argument is.
You said a fertilised egg can develop into a person therefore it is the same as and has the same value as a person. You are obviously wrong, as you basically admitted there.
Original post by 2WheelGod
It is a better justification that "because I say so".
I haven’t said that.
try this puzzle I read somewhere and see whether you really think they are the same.
There is a fire at a fertility lab. In one room there is a case with 100 fertilised eggs. In another there is a small child. You can only save one. Which one do you save?
From what you say you must save the case of eggs and leave the child to burn to death. Sensible people would save the child. Which shows just how silly your argument is.
You said a fertilised egg can develop into a person therefore it is the same as and has the same value as a person. You are obviously wrong, as you basically admitted there.
There is a fire at a fertility lab. In one room there is a case with 100 fertilised eggs. In another there is a small child. You can only save one. Which one do you save?
From what you say you must save the case of eggs and leave the child to burn to death. Sensible people would save the child. Which shows just how silly your argument is.
You said a fertilised egg can develop into a person therefore it is the same as and has the same value as a person. You are obviously wrong, as you basically admitted there.
Ideally I’d save both. If it were a choice between one or the other then I would save the child. But abortion generally isn’t a choice between one or the other.
Original post by tazarooni89
I’m not interested in engaging with an argument that you clearly don’t believe yourself.
The argument I am asking about is your own, why do you not want to discuss that? Because I don't agree with it? That's not how debates work.
A central premise of your argument is that embryos and fetuses qualify as human life, yet you have refused to justify why "human life" should be defined such that it includes them (as opposed to some other definition which excludes them).
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by SHallowvale
The argument I am asking about is your own, why do you not want to discuss that? Because I don't agree with it? That's not how debates work.
A central premise of your argument is that embryos and fetuses qualify as human life, yet you have refused to justify why "human life" should be defined such that it includes them (as opposed to some other definition which excludes them).
A central premise of your argument is that embryos and fetuses qualify as human life, yet you have refused to justify why "human life" should be defined such that it includes them (as opposed to some other definition which excludes them).
The argument you have presented is that it is valid to strip people of their human rights by simply defining them as non-human in order to do so. I don't think I need to sit here and explain to you what's wrong with that.
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
I don't see why the idea that fetuses and embryos qualify as human life would need any more justification than the idea that 6 year olds, or African bushmen, or homosexuals, or any other such group qualifies as human life.
'I don't need to justify it' isn't an argument. You chose the criteria, the burden is on you to justify it.
Alternative criteria can very easily exist, as previously described.
Original post by SHallowvale
'I don't need to justify it' isn't an argument. You chose the criteria, the burden is on you to justify it.
Alternative criteria can very easily exist, as previously described.
Alternative criteria can very easily exist, as previously described.
Why would the burden be on me to justify it? Alternative criteria can easily exist in which you don't qualify as human life either. Do you think the burden is on you to justify why you do, in order to retain your own human rights?
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
Why would the burden be on me to justify it? Alternative criteria can easily exist in which you don't qualify as human life either. Do you think the burden is on you to justify why you do, in order to retain your own human rights?
Because the criteria were proposed by you and you have demanded "iron clad" justifications from others.
Put it this way, suppose someone said that embyros and fetuses do not qualify as human life and that abortion was therefore acceptable. Would you accept that argument or would you ask why embryos and fetuses do not qualify as human life?
Original post by SHallowvale
Because the criteria were proposed by you and you have demanded "iron clad" justifications from others.
Put it this way, suppose someone said that embyros and fetuses do not qualify as human life and that abortion was therefore acceptable. Would you accept that argument or would you ask why embryos and fetuses do not qualify as human life?
Put it this way, suppose someone said that embyros and fetuses do not qualify as human life and that abortion was therefore acceptable. Would you accept that argument or would you ask why embryos and fetuses do not qualify as human life?
So? I've demanded iron-clad justifications from others because the burden of justification is on them.
Put it this way: suppose someone said that you do not qualify as human life and that killing you is therefore acceptable. Would you accept that argument or would you ask why you do not qualify as human life? Would the burden of justification be on you to explain why you qualify as human life?
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
So? I've demanded iron-clad justifications from others because the burden of justification is on them.
Put it this way: suppose someone said that you do not qualify as human life and that killing you is therefore acceptable. Would you accept that argument or would you ask why you do not qualify as human life? Would the burden of justification be on you to explain why you qualify as human life?
Put it this way: suppose someone said that you do not qualify as human life and that killing you is therefore acceptable. Would you accept that argument or would you ask why you do not qualify as human life? Would the burden of justification be on you to explain why you qualify as human life?
And the burden of justification is on you. You claimed that human life starts at fertilisation so you need to justify that.
Anyone claiming that human life includes A, B and C but excludes X, Y and Z needs to justify their claim. That includes yourself. I have made no such claims as to where life starts and ends, you have.
Original post by SHallowvale
And the burden of justification is on you. You claimed that human life starts at fertilisation so you need to justify that.
Anyone claiming that human life includes A, B and C but excludes X, Y and Z needs to justify their claim. That includes yourself. I have made no such claims as to where life starts and ends, you have.
Anyone claiming that human life includes A, B and C but excludes X, Y and Z needs to justify their claim. That includes yourself. I have made no such claims as to where life starts and ends, you have.
So following this principle, whom do you think is the burden of justification is on in the African bushman example? The people in favour of killing them on the basis that they "don't qualify as human life", or the people opposing this?
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
So following this principle, whom do you think is the burden of justification is on in the African bushman example? The people in favour of killing them on the basis that they "don't qualify as human life", or the people opposing this?
Either, this is metaphysics. If someone claims that something does or does not qualify as human life then the burden is on them to justify what "human life" means and why their criteria have been chosen.
So, as I keep asking, what is the justification for your belief that human life starts at fertilisation? Why should we define human life only at that point, as opposed to a later point (e.g. a certain number of weeks or pregnancy, after birth, etc) or an earlier point (e.g. before fertilisation)?
Original post by tazarooni89
Not at all. I’m saying I’ve seen no justification why they’re different. “Anyone with an ounce of sense agrees with me” is not a justification.
You’ve mention its “unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells”. as a potential justification. But a person under general anaesthetic is also an unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells. If a foetus doesn’t deserve the right to life just because of that then neither does the anaesthetised person.
That doesn’t follow from my argument. I haven’t claimed that “a fertilised egg can develop into a fetus therefore it is a fetus”.
You’ve mention its “unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells”. as a potential justification. But a person under general anaesthetic is also an unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells. If a foetus doesn’t deserve the right to life just because of that then neither does the anaesthetised person.
That doesn’t follow from my argument. I haven’t claimed that “a fertilised egg can develop into a fetus therefore it is a fetus”.
"a person under general anaesthetic is also an unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells"
Not the same. A person under anaesthetic already has the capacity to think and feel. They have a brain and a nervous system but they just have been turned off briefly. They have already thought and felt and they expect to regain it. And even then there are medical cases where people who have completely lost all ability to think and feel are "killed" by medical staff with the consent of relatives or the courts. Your argument just keeps falling apart.
Original post by tazarooni89
I haven’t said that.
Ideally I’d save both. If it were a choice between one or the other then I would save the child. But abortion generally isn’t a choice between one or the other.
Ideally I’d save both. If it were a choice between one or the other then I would save the child. But abortion generally isn’t a choice between one or the other.
So you admit that one living person has more value than 100 fertilised eggs.
Your argument collapses. End of debate!
Original post by tazarooni89
Why would the burden be on me to justify it? Alternative criteria can easily exist in which you don't qualify as human life either. Do you think the burden is on you to justify why you do, in order to retain your own human rights?
Why would the burden be on you to justify your own argument?
Hmm, that's a difficult one. lol!
Original post by tazarooni89
So following this principle, whom do you think is the burden of justification is on in the African bushman example? The people in favour of killing them on the basis that they "don't qualify as human life", or the people opposing this?
It is easy to argue why an African bushman qualifies as a person but you are struggling to argue why a fertilised egg does. Just saying that an African bushman is a person therefore a fertilised egg is is not any kind of sensible argument. Its like saying a chicken is a bird therefore my breakfast egg is a bird. lol!
Original post by 2WheelGod
So you admit that one living person has more value than 100 fertilised eggs.
Not necessarily. I’d also save my own family member over 100 random strangers. That doesn’t mean they hold more objective value, or that my decision is even correct; it means I personally have more of an emotional connection to them.
Original post by 2WheelGod
"a person under general anaesthetic is also an unthinking and unfeeling bunch of cells"
Not the same. A person under anaesthetic already has the capacity to think and feel. They have a brain and a nervous system but they just have been turned off briefly. They have already thought and felt and they expect to regain it. And even then there are medical cases where people who have completely lost all ability to think and feel are "killed" by medical staff with the consent of relatives or the courts. Your argument just keeps falling apart.
Not the same. A person under anaesthetic already has the capacity to think and feel. They have a brain and a nervous system but they just have been turned off briefly. They have already thought and felt and they expect to regain it. And even then there are medical cases where people who have completely lost all ability to think and feel are "killed" by medical staff with the consent of relatives or the courts. Your argument just keeps falling apart.
People who have lost the ability to think and feel are “killed” by medical staff with the consent of relatives / the courts, but only if it is expected that they will never gain these abilities in future. If they are expected to wake up in X months’ time then they aren’t killed, their lives are still protected. What your example shows is that even if they lack the ability to think and feel now, it is the fact that they will be able to do so in future that is relevant.
An unborn child is also expected to gain the ability to think and feel in future. It also only temporarily lacks these abilities.
Also this ignores the point that brain and nervous activity is detectable in an unborn child at only 6 weeks anyway. So if the ability to think and feel gives someone the right to live, that would already rule out most abortions.
Original post by 2WheelGod
Why would the burden be on you to justify your own argument?
Hmm, that's a difficult one. lol!
Hmm, that's a difficult one. lol!
You’re the one arguing that an unborn child and a born one are so different that one deserves the right to life and the other doesn’t. I’m simply saying. I don’t see what the (relevant) difference is.
(edited 2 months ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
