It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[sakinago]

My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.

I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

No one, at least no one I know, believes that sperm are human beings. If they do, they shouldn’t be part of this conversation. If you actually think this is a legit argument...you also should not be part of the conversation. They are gametes. Again, a question that science answered a long time ago.

Dear god, where the hell did y’all receive your educations on this middle school level biology type of stuff? Demand a refund or stop wasting time on here and devote the rest of you life to fixing the education system, because it clearly failed you.

 

[Tax Man]

They probably just think you are fucking retarded. Like most of us do..

When I am in heaven and you are in hell, I will ask God to send me down to give you a drop of water, and God will say no.

So I'm sending you water now. Repent, or be damned.

There is no heaven or hell. No god either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They probably just think you are fucking retarded. Like most of us do..

When I am in heaven and you are in hell, I will ask God to send me down to give you a drop of water, and God will say no.

So I'm sending you water now. Repent, or be damned.

There is no heaven or hell. No god either.

And we're taking your word for this because why?

 

[Tax Man]

They probably just think you are fucking retarded. Like most of us do..

When I am in heaven and you are in hell, I will ask God to send me down to give you a drop of water, and God will say no.

So I'm sending you water now. Repent, or be damned.

There is no heaven or hell. No god either.

And we're taking your word for this because why?

Cause if there were a dog who wanted capitulation sooo many conservatives would be gone in a heart beat.
Actually I have been dead and resurrected by a doc as a youth. About 45 minuted dead. Never saw anything that I can remember. I do not even remember the cliff i drove my harley off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They probably just think you are fucking retarded. Like most of us do..

When I am in heaven and you are in hell, I will ask God to send me down to give you a drop of water, and God will say no.

So I'm sending you water now. Repent, or be damned.

There is no heaven or hell. No god either.

And we're taking your word for this because why?

Cause if there were a dog who wanted capitulation sooo many conservatives would be gone in a heart beat.
Actually I have been dead and resurrected by a doc as a youth. About 45 minuted dead. Never saw anything that I can remember. I do not even remember the cliff i drove my harley off.

Actually, you don't know any more certainly than anyone else does. And the fact that you want to make definitive statements on something no one on Earth can know for a certainty just marks you as an utter moron in my book.

Buh bye. FLUSH!

 

[Tax Man]

They probably just think you are fucking retarded. Like most of us do..

When I am in heaven and you are in hell, I will ask God to send me down to give you a drop of water, and God will say no.

So I'm sending you water now. Repent, or be damned.

There is no heaven or hell. No god either.

And we're taking your word for this because why?

Cause if there were a dog who wanted capitulation sooo many conservatives would be gone in a heart beat.
Actually I have been dead and resurrected by a doc as a youth. About 45 minuted dead. Never saw anything that I can remember. I do not even remember the cliff i drove my harley off.

Actually, you don't know any more certainly than anyone else does. And the fact that you want to make definitive statements on something no one on Earth can know for a certainty just marks you as an utter moron in my book.

Buh bye. FLUSH!

Sorry I dared to mock your fairy tales.

 

[Montrovant]

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

The abortion argument is a moral one, but the morals are based on hard scientific fact.

Also, you might want to NEVER attempt to play Grammar Nazi with someone who's light-years beyond you in English skills. You will only embarrass yourself.

• We use quotation marks with direct quotes, with titles of certain works, to imply alternate meanings, and to write words as words.

Quotation Marks: Rules How to Use Them Correctly

In this case, the first half of the equation was, more or less, a quote from you, and the quotation marks indicate that. The second half of the equation was my translation of your words, and the quotation marks are used to indicate THAT.

Lesson over, no charge.

So when you "more or less" quoted me, were you implying an alternate meaning? Because it certainly presented an alternate meaning from what I actually posted.

If you need to change my words and their meaning to make your point work, your point may not be on solid ground to begin with.

No, the more or less quoting was simply a paraphrase for brevity. And no, that part had EXACTLY the same meaning as what you said.

And since my point was that your assertion was so much bullshit, I fail to see how pointing that out makes a problem for me.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" has exactly the same meaning as "Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one"?

You are using an odd definition of 'rather than' it would seem.

 

[Montrovant]

You get that I, like you, and everyone else here, am just giving my opinion, right?

You get that it's not your opinion I'm objecting to; it's your assumption that every question asked and point made is about you personally.

Except I have made no such assumption. In fact, a lot of what I've been arguing is about what I see as the views of others.

That you assume I think every question asked is about me personally says much more about you than me.

I will admit to assuming that every post directly quoting me or one of my posts is directed at me, though.

Yeah, you have, in fact, made that assumption. And no, I'm not planning to go back and forth over this endlessly.

Wonderful for you that you are going to decide what I am or are not thinking, then.

This just in: saying words actually conveys meanings and communication to other people. Film at 11.

That's true. Too bad you are willing to change the words and meanings when it suits you.

 

[Montrovant]

And I said personal fking responsibility!

Is a fetus live?

A fetus is alive. So is an ameba. Being alive does not make either a human being. You jackasses keep blathering about abortion being murder, but when children are subjected to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, and are made to live in squalor, that is also murder...just the slow kind

"Lots of things are alive. Look how clever I am to dismiss a fetus's humanity on the basis that LOTS of non-humans are alive! Just don't ask me to account for the fact that the fetus has all the classifiers of humanity as well, because I'm hoping no one notices while I run past that!"

Moron.

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

there are plenty of parents available for unwanted children. you should read up rather than wish them dead.

True. REAL compassion would be working to make it easier for good parents to adopt in THIS country, instead of having to go overseas in order to adopt while they're still young and without going broke in the process.

This is certainly something people with different opinions on abortion should all be able to agree with. I've often heard that adoption can be a very difficult process, and while I understand wanting to properly vet adoptive parents, if there are far more children without parents who could benefit from being adopted than there are potential parents who have made it through that vetting process, it might be time to re-examine it and see if it can be done more efficiently.

 

[Montrovant]

You are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that a fetus is not alive, nor that it is not a separate being. I've pointed out that the question "Is a fetus alive?" is different from the question "Is a fetus a separate living being?", just as it is different from the question "Is a fetus a person?". You may not see a distinction between the question of if a fetus is alive and if a fetus is a separate living being, but it exists. I think a subject as contentious as abortion would be best discussed or argued with very clearly defined points.

The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with the abortion debate? OK....

I can discuss abortion without arguing my position about it. Besides, I'll join in any thread I care to.

Of course personhood is not a scientific term. So what? Do you think the abortion debate is based solely on scientific knowledge?

I'm not trying to make anything about "this, that, and the other thing that allows (me) to slide right on by." I'm pointing out that JC456's comment that "there is but one question, is a fetus alive?" is not the only, or even an especially accurate, question. It's a minor point, but as I said, with an issue this contentious, clearly defined phrasing seems best.

I haven't refused to answer anything. I don't recall you actually asking me if a fetus is alive, but if you've been unable to figure it out from my posts, yes, I readily accept that it is.

My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.

I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

 

[sakinago]

They probably just think you are fucking retarded. Like most of us do..

When I am in heaven and you are in hell, I will ask God to send me down to give you a drop of water, and God will say no.

So I'm sending you water now. Repent, or be damned.

There is no heaven or hell. No god either.

And we're taking your word for this because why?

Cause if there were a dog who wanted capitulation sooo many conservatives would be gone in a heart beat.
Actually I have been dead and resurrected by a doc as a youth. About 45 minuted dead. Never saw anything that I can remember. I do not even remember the cliff i drove my harley off.

What happened? Was it an accident?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

No one, at least no one I know, believes that sperm are human beings. If they do, they shouldn’t be part of this conversation. If you actually think this is a legit argument...you also should not be part of the conversation. They are gametes. Again, a question that science answered a long time ago.

Dear god, where the hell did y’all receive your educations on this middle school level biology type of stuff? Demand a refund or stop wasting time on here and devote the rest of you life to fixing the education system, because it clearly failed you.

Yo Bubba, I did not say that I believed that sperm was human life. I said that there are those who believe that , and your claiming otherwise just exposes your ignorance.

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

You also ignorantly claimed recently that no one is opposed to contraception

BBC - Ethics - Contraception: Moral case against contraception

Pope reaffirms Church opposition to contraception

Wake the fuck up. And if you are awake, stop lying

 

[sakinago]

My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.

I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

That’s funny, because ignoring science is all I’ve seen in this thread so far.

I also never said there couldn’t ever be any different conclusions. Of course there can be. Flat earth is actually a thing in 2018. The question is, is do those conclusions align with reality. If they don’t, that’d be like driving with a GPS with Chinese road maps downloaded in America. This was my point when I used the example of nihilism, or the computer code. If your theory is based on an a priori assumption of “its not life, because it isn’t,” or “well we don’t really know”, “well it’s life, it just doesn’t count”...then that’s not aligned with established reality. Unless someone wants to shed some new light on the matter that doesn’t involve thinking gametes are somehow equivalent to something that has double the chromosomes, and actually grows and develops...have at it.

 

[Montrovant]

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

That’s funny, because ignoring science is all I’ve seen in this thread so far.

I also never said there couldn’t ever be any different conclusions. Of course there can be. Flat earth is actually a thing in 2018. The question is, is do those conclusions align with reality. If they don’t, that’d be like driving with a GPS with Chinese road maps downloaded in America. This was my point when I used the example of nihilism, or the computer code. If your theory is based on an a priori assumption of “its not life, because it isn’t,” or “well we don’t really know”, “well it’s life, it just doesn’t count”...then that’s not aligned with established reality. Unless someone wants to shed some new light on the matter that doesn’t involve thinking gametes are somehow equivalent to something that has double the chromosomes, and actually grows and develops...have at it.

Don't mistake me, I'm not claiming that ignoring science doesn't happen. I'm just saying it is possible for someone to make a moral judgement for or against abortion while not ignoring the science involved.

Your third example "well it's life, it just doesn't count" does not fit with the other two IMO. The whether or not a particular life 'counts' is a moral or value judgement; or at least, the way you are using it it seems to be. The first example is one of definition: what constitutes life. The second example is one of knowledge: what does humanity (or whatever group the 'we' indicates) know or not know. The third example appears to be more about what the life means to an individual, whether it matters to that individual, or how much. Different judgements about that can align with reality.

To give my own examples, one person might believe that all human life matters equally, while another might believe that human life without brain function matters less than human life with it. There is no ignoring science or reality in either judgement, instead a difference of opinion about what gives a life value. Whether one person finds the opinion of the other to be foolish or morally repugnant does not mean that either opinion is ignoring reality.

The idea that a sperm is a separate human life, on the other hand, would be ignoring science.

 

[sakinago]

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

No one, at least no one I know, believes that sperm are human beings. If they do, they shouldn’t be part of this conversation. If you actually think this is a legit argument...you also should not be part of the conversation. They are gametes. Again, a question that science answered a long time ago.

Dear god, where the hell did y’all receive your educations on this middle school level biology type of stuff? Demand a refund or stop wasting time on here and devote the rest of you life to fixing the education system, because it clearly failed you.

Yo Bubba, I did not say that I believed that sperm was human life. I said that there are those who believe that , and your claiming otherwise just exposes your ignorance.

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

You also ignorantly claimed recently that no one is opposed to contraception

BBC - Ethics - Contraception: Moral case against contraception

Pope reaffirms Church opposition to contraception

Wake the fuck up. And if you are awake, stop lying

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

No one, at least no one I know, believes that sperm are human beings. If they do, they shouldn’t be part of this conversation. If you actually think this is a legit argument...you also should not be part of the conversation. They are gametes. Again, a question that science answered a long time ago.

Dear god, where the hell did y’all receive your educations on this middle school level biology type of stuff? Demand a refund or stop wasting time on here and devote the rest of you life to fixing the education system, because it clearly failed you.

Yo Bubba, I did not say that I believed that sperm was human life. I said that there are those who believe that , and your claiming otherwise just exposes your ignorance.

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

You also ignorantly claimed recently that no one is opposed to contraception

BBC - Ethics - Contraception: Moral case against contraception

Pope reaffirms Church opposition to contraception

Wake the fuck up. And if you are awake, stop lying

Oh so that’s why catholic women just keep popping them out left and right....oh wait, they’re not...because there are maybe 5 hardcore practicing Catholics that believe BC is wrong, are of childbearing years, and that have actually found a spouse to make kids with. And I’m not hearing any of them call for a law banning birth control for everyone. I could make an ethical argument for strangling puppies, that doesn’t mean I’m going to get a whole lotta subscribers. So, why did you post the ethical talking points? Some people still believe humans were never meant to eat meat, some people believe the earth is flat. There’s some stupid/crazy people out there. Luckily they’re in the overwhelming minority. My point wasn’t that there wasn’t anyone who never believed such things, my point was that it’s a silly strawman to bring up the extreme and overwhelming minority's and attribute that to an entire group of people...that clearly are not saying what you’re trying to strawman them into. Like, I just called for the pro-life movement to drive around in a mobile gyno RV, and do free mirenas for anyone who wants it. Wouldn’t that be something you agree with? No, I guess not, I guess you’d rather bring up the people who think birth control is evil...all 5 of them out there under the age of 40.

If you already “knew” then why did YOU try to make the argument? Legitimately, you were the one who posted that as an argument...suggesting gametes were the same thing. And yea, your skins cells are alive too, until they aren’t, that doesn’t make them their own separate human being. Gametes are sex cells, half the chromosomes. When a women has her period and throws her tampons away, there isn’t a community of sex cells just chillen in the landfill, making a new life for themselves as half a human. You skin cells don’t fall off, and all of a sudden are like, “huh, I think I’m gonna live the rest of my life as Algea.” WTF point were you trying to make, if it wasn’t that sex cells are the same thing as a fetus?

 

[sakinago]

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

That’s funny, because ignoring science is all I’ve seen in this thread so far.

I also never said there couldn’t ever be any different conclusions. Of course there can be. Flat earth is actually a thing in 2018. The question is, is do those conclusions align with reality. If they don’t, that’d be like driving with a GPS with Chinese road maps downloaded in America. This was my point when I used the example of nihilism, or the computer code. If your theory is based on an a priori assumption of “its not life, because it isn’t,” or “well we don’t really know”, “well it’s life, it just doesn’t count”...then that’s not aligned with established reality. Unless someone wants to shed some new light on the matter that doesn’t involve thinking gametes are somehow equivalent to something that has double the chromosomes, and actually grows and develops...have at it.

Don't mistake me, I'm not claiming that ignoring science doesn't happen. I'm just saying it is possible for someone to make a moral judgement for or against abortion while not ignoring the science involved.

Your third example "well it's life, it just doesn't count" does not fit with the other two IMO. The whether or not a particular life 'counts' is a moral or value judgement; or at least, the way you are using it it seems to be. The first example is one of definition: what constitutes life. The second example is one of knowledge: what does humanity (or whatever group the 'we' indicates) know or not know. The third example appears to be more about what the life means to an individual, whether it matters to that individual, or how much. Different judgements about that can align with reality.

To give my own examples, one person might believe that all human life matters equally, while another might believe that human life without brain function matters less than human life with it. There is no ignoring science or reality in either judgement, instead a difference of opinion about what gives a life value. Whether one person finds the opinion of the other to be foolish or morally repugnant does not mean that either opinion is ignoring reality.

The idea that a sperm is a separate human life, on the other hand, would be ignoring science.

Well, we’ll do the hypothetical Teri Chiavo twin sister scenario/mental excercise, Cherri Tiavo. Same situation as Teri, only difference is, the doctors say give Cherri 7-8 months, 86% chance she’ll make a full recovery, and be a full functioning human being. Is it ok to end “life sustaining” treatment with that type of prognosis?

 

[Dragonlady]

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

That’s funny, because ignoring science is all I’ve seen in this thread so far.

I also never said there couldn’t ever be any different conclusions. Of course there can be. Flat earth is actually a thing in 2018. The question is, is do those conclusions align with reality. If they don’t, that’d be like driving with a GPS with Chinese road maps downloaded in America. This was my point when I used the example of nihilism, or the computer code. If your theory is based on an a priori assumption of “its not life, because it isn’t,” or “well we don’t really know”, “well it’s life, it just doesn’t count”...then that’s not aligned with established reality. Unless someone wants to shed some new light on the matter that doesn’t involve thinking gametes are somehow equivalent to something that has double the chromosomes, and actually grows and develops...have at it.

You’re the one promoting fake science on birth control. Giving us stats with no validity in the real world.

And trying to cover your willingness to strip women of rights to decide their own lives in favour of any fetus they might be carrying.

 

[sakinago]

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

That’s funny, because ignoring science is all I’ve seen in this thread so far.

I also never said there couldn’t ever be any different conclusions. Of course there can be. Flat earth is actually a thing in 2018. The question is, is do those conclusions align with reality. If they don’t, that’d be like driving with a GPS with Chinese road maps downloaded in America. This was my point when I used the example of nihilism, or the computer code. If your theory is based on an a priori assumption of “its not life, because it isn’t,” or “well we don’t really know”, “well it’s life, it just doesn’t count”...then that’s not aligned with established reality. Unless someone wants to shed some new light on the matter that doesn’t involve thinking gametes are somehow equivalent to something that has double the chromosomes, and actually grows and develops...have at it.

You’re the one promoting fake science on birth control. Giving us stats with no validity in the real world.

And trying to cover your willingness to strip women of rights to decide their own lives in favour of any fetus they might be carrying.

I honestly cannot think of another drug that is more effective than hormonal birth control, haha. If you’re doing the pill form, it’s just once a day. If that utterly difficult responsibility is too hard, get mirena, no pills, a one time insertion that’s good for 5 friggen years.

What planet do you live on where you blame something that has a 99.9% EFFICACY RATE on people’s inability to use it properly? The pill, is a single pill a day. Do you blame the toothpaste when people fail to use it? Do you blame safety belts when people don’t put them on? Both of those actions are either just as easy to do or even harder, and less effective than the pill...Are you suggesting that women just can’t handle taking a single pill a day?

Let’s not forget that your stats solely rely on self reporting, the type of self reporting that is very inaccurate because people lie all the time about this shit. Especially because it’s human nature not to want to look irresponsible, and blame their bad decisions on outside factors.

If people were getting cavities all the time because they aren’t brushing their teeth twice a day, in what bizzaro demension would we not be shaking our heads at those people saying “for Christ’s sake people, just put the toothpaste on the brush, and brush your freaking teeth, take two minutes out of your morning, two minutes before you go to bed. That’s all it takes.” No, instead dragonlady wants to accuse me of lying because some people can’t handle taking 30 seconds out of their day to pull out the circle, take out a pill, and swallow that pill. Having an unused condom sitting in your bedside table while having sex doesn’t count as “using birth control”. Same freaking thing here with the pill.

I’m pretty tired of dealing with these delusions.

 

[Montrovant]

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

That’s funny, because ignoring science is all I’ve seen in this thread so far.

I also never said there couldn’t ever be any different conclusions. Of course there can be. Flat earth is actually a thing in 2018. The question is, is do those conclusions align with reality. If they don’t, that’d be like driving with a GPS with Chinese road maps downloaded in America. This was my point when I used the example of nihilism, or the computer code. If your theory is based on an a priori assumption of “its not life, because it isn’t,” or “well we don’t really know”, “well it’s life, it just doesn’t count”...then that’s not aligned with established reality. Unless someone wants to shed some new light on the matter that doesn’t involve thinking gametes are somehow equivalent to something that has double the chromosomes, and actually grows and develops...have at it.

Don't mistake me, I'm not claiming that ignoring science doesn't happen. I'm just saying it is possible for someone to make a moral judgement for or against abortion while not ignoring the science involved.

Your third example "well it's life, it just doesn't count" does not fit with the other two IMO. The whether or not a particular life 'counts' is a moral or value judgement; or at least, the way you are using it it seems to be. The first example is one of definition: what constitutes life. The second example is one of knowledge: what does humanity (or whatever group the 'we' indicates) know or not know. The third example appears to be more about what the life means to an individual, whether it matters to that individual, or how much. Different judgements about that can align with reality.

To give my own examples, one person might believe that all human life matters equally, while another might believe that human life without brain function matters less than human life with it. There is no ignoring science or reality in either judgement, instead a difference of opinion about what gives a life value. Whether one person finds the opinion of the other to be foolish or morally repugnant does not mean that either opinion is ignoring reality.

The idea that a sperm is a separate human life, on the other hand, would be ignoring science.

Well, we’ll do the hypothetical Teri Chiavo twin sister scenario/mental excercise, Cherri Tiavo. Same situation as Teri, only difference is, the doctors say give Cherri 7-8 months, 86% chance she’ll make a full recovery, and be a full functioning human being. Is it ok to end “life sustaining” treatment with that type of prognosis?

The answer does not matter to my point. Again, I'm not trying to argue the correct morality, just that the judgement is about morality. Whether someone believes it is or is not OK to end life sustaining treatment is a moral judgement and one that can be made without ignoring science either way.

 

[sakinago]

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

That’s funny, because ignoring science is all I’ve seen in this thread so far.

I also never said there couldn’t ever be any different conclusions. Of course there can be. Flat earth is actually a thing in 2018. The question is, is do those conclusions align with reality. If they don’t, that’d be like driving with a GPS with Chinese road maps downloaded in America. This was my point when I used the example of nihilism, or the computer code. If your theory is based on an a priori assumption of “its not life, because it isn’t,” or “well we don’t really know”, “well it’s life, it just doesn’t count”...then that’s not aligned with established reality. Unless someone wants to shed some new light on the matter that doesn’t involve thinking gametes are somehow equivalent to something that has double the chromosomes, and actually grows and develops...have at it.

Don't mistake me, I'm not claiming that ignoring science doesn't happen. I'm just saying it is possible for someone to make a moral judgement for or against abortion while not ignoring the science involved.

Your third example "well it's life, it just doesn't count" does not fit with the other two IMO. The whether or not a particular life 'counts' is a moral or value judgement; or at least, the way you are using it it seems to be. The first example is one of definition: what constitutes life. The second example is one of knowledge: what does humanity (or whatever group the 'we' indicates) know or not know. The third example appears to be more about what the life means to an individual, whether it matters to that individual, or how much. Different judgements about that can align with reality.

To give my own examples, one person might believe that all human life matters equally, while another might believe that human life without brain function matters less than human life with it. There is no ignoring science or reality in either judgement, instead a difference of opinion about what gives a life value. Whether one person finds the opinion of the other to be foolish or morally repugnant does not mean that either opinion is ignoring reality.

The idea that a sperm is a separate human life, on the other hand, would be ignoring science.

Well, we’ll do the hypothetical Teri Chiavo twin sister scenario/mental excercise, Cherri Tiavo. Same situation as Teri, only difference is, the doctors say give Cherri 7-8 months, 86% chance she’ll make a full recovery, and be a full functioning human being. Is it ok to end “life sustaining” treatment with that type of prognosis?

The answer does not matter to my point. Again, I'm not trying to argue the correct morality, just that the judgement is about morality. Whether someone believes it is or is not OK to end life sustaining treatment is a moral judgement and one that can be made without ignoring science either way.

But the answers matters to the immediate question that would obviously follow your point. It also matters to the overall debate. Questions on life and death, human rights, etc, shouldn’t be placed anywhere near the realm of it’s just a “potAto potoughto” issue. They need to be answered.