A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[Agnapostate]

put a sock in it agnes, you've grown tiresome.

excuse me, even more tiresome.

Your little boyfriend's been set some homework, but has proven unable to respond. Why don't you offer a logically sound argument instead of one of your empty little soundbytes?

 

[del]

put a sock in it agnes, you've grown tiresome.

excuse me, even more tiresome.

Your little boyfriend's been set some homework, but has proven unable to respond. Why don't you offer a logically sound argument instead of one of your empty little soundbytes?

because, unlike you, i gave up mental masturbation.

 

[manifold]

Moreover, why do you consider killing a human to be worse than killing an ant? This is the question that I've been trying to have answered.

Common sense?

 

[Agnapostate]

because, unlike you, i gave up mental masturbation.

Sharing logical fallacies with your newfound boy toy Shogun, etc. is a pretty effective daisy chain, as far as I can tell.

 

[del]

because, unlike you, i gave up mental masturbation.

Sharing logical fallacies with your newfound boy toy Shogun is a pretty effective daisy chain, as far as I can tell.

should i use a larger font, aggie?

 

[Agnapostate]

Common sense?

We've reverted to the doctrine of "indisputable truth" again. At various points in history, numerous doctrines and beliefs now regarded as untrue (a geocentric solar system is an example), were thought to be indisputably correct. Your reference to "common sense" seems to run along those lines.

 

[del]

Common sense?

We've reverted to the doctrine of "indisputable truth" again. At various points in history, numerous doctrines and beliefs now regarded as untrue (a geocentric solar system is an example), were thought to be indisputably correct. Your reference to "common sense" seems to run along those lines.

only to the terminally stupid.

 

[Agnapostate]

should i use a larger font, aggie?

"aggie"? Don't share your pet names with us, son. Share logical arguments.

 

[Agnapostate]

only to the terminally stupid.

Is this your way of telling us you're lost?

 

[del]

only to the terminally stupid.

Is this your way of telling us you're lost?

no, it's my way of telling you that you're terminally stupid.

did i stutter?

 

[Agnapostate]

no, it's my way of telling you that you're terminally stupid.

did i stutter?

Considering your other communication impediments (along with a general condition of imbecility), it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Ravi]

Nem, evolutionarily it only makes sense to favor one's own species over another.

But I've lost track...what does this have to do with abortion?

 

[edthecynic]

Moreover, why do you consider killing a human to be worse than killing an ant? This is the question that I've been trying to have answered.

Common sense?

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
- Albert Einstein

 

[Agnapostate]

Nem, evolutionarily it only makes sense to favor one's own species over another.

True. But this is not suitable for public policy formation. For instance, it makes similar evolutionary sense to favor one's own offspring over another, but a parent's preference that three stranger children die instead of his or her own child does not make that a suitable objective position.

But I've lost track...what does this have to do with abortion?

I asked why a human fetus was morally superior to nonhuman animals with a greater awareness of their existence and surroundings, and a greater capacity to feel pain.

 

[manifold]

Common sense?

We've reverted to the doctrine of "indisputable truth" again. At various points in history, numerous doctrines and beliefs now regarded as untrue (a geocentric solar system is an example), were thought to be indisputably correct. Your reference to "common sense" seems to run along those lines.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong, no offense. You are comparing apples to oil filters.

False assumptions about a geocentric solar system, for example, can be disproven by factual evidence. Good luck finding any factual evidence that disproves the general opinion that humans are worth more than ants. You're better off sticking with things like slavery. At least that's in the ball park. Sure, it's possible that, like slavery, people eventually and collectively decide that ants should be given equal consideration to humans, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Ravi]

Nem, evolutionarily it only makes sense to favor one's own species over another.

True. But this is not suitable for public policy formation. For instance, it makes similar evolutionary sense to favor one's own offspring over another, but a parent's preference that three stranger children die instead of his or her own child does not make that a suitable objective position.

But I've lost track...what does this have to do with abortion?

I asked why a human fetus was morally superior to nonhuman animals with a greater awareness of their existence and surroundings, and a greater capacity to feel pain.

It is if public policy is to ensure the survival of the species, no? I don't think you can compare public policy with the wants of one particular parent.

I don't believe that other species have any bearing on what we do with our own species when it comes to abortion...or anything much else but an overall attempt to ensure a balance in nature.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Of course a "fetus" is alive. And the idea that one member of our species should be able to set up its own criteria for deciding that another member of our species is not yet developed enough to have a right to continue its life is absurd. But it's the idea by which we proceed.

 

[Shogun]

Unless?

That's what I've been saying all along, perhaps not as clearly and succinctly as I thought.

In that case, is there a morally relevant difference between killing a human and stepping on an ant?

Notice the pattern of his reaction.. throw a Kantian curve ball at him and he disappears. This guy is full of shit.

Dear boy, you know absolutely nothing about ethics (which accounts for your inability to offer a logically sound argument in favor of your position), a fact that you illustrate with idiotic references to Kant and the categorical imperative. Considering Kant's proclamation that "[o]nly a rational being has the power to act in accordance with his ideas of laws-that is, in accordance with principles-and only so has he a will," it should be rather obvious to those familiar with Kant that a fetus is not a "rational being" through the guidelines that Kant established. Of course, all you did was go to Wikipedia and look up "utilitarianism," so you gathered some dimwitted comprehension that Kantianism and deontology was opposed to utilitarianism, but were not informed enough to understand the nature of Kantianism.

And this simply illustrates that you know nothing of ethics, least of all utilitarianism, as was seen from your imbecilic flailing and comical attempts to attack felicific calculus with the example of the Holocaust victim being slapped. In regards to Kantianism, I doubt that you could even explain the difference between a means and a mere means.

Hey dude. Perhaps you could repost a more convincing rebuttal after you come down from the sugar high of getting your ass handed to you.. The Kantianism ethical paradigm isn't being used by a fetus to slap you around like a nelly little ***** in this thread dude... I, a rational adult, am using Kantianism to define a moral standard with which you disagree. It's nothing short of HILARIOUS that you would even try to suggest that the application of an ethical paradigm depends on how a ******* FETUS can rationalize. How many FETI say, "oh well shit, I AM less aware than a ******* spider monkey according to utilitarianism so BRING ON THE COAT HANGERS!"?

Trust me, dude.. SOMETHING is being illustrated here... but, unfortunately for you, it's not your enlightened take on ethical paradigms. If you want to avoid the categorical imperative that states Human Life is of greater importance to lower animal life then so be it. Lord ******* knows you have become a joke by now anyway so... enjoy.


“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”




Yet he argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle) and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than the law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant's moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect.

Kant's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


(<--- I am laughing AT you not WITH you)

 

[Shogun]

because, unlike you, i gave up mental masturbation.

Sharing logical fallacies with your newfound boy toy Shogun, etc. is a pretty effective daisy chain, as far as I can tell.

HA!

had to DISGUISE yourself after the last batch of hell your 44 ******* 13 year old utilitarianism caused around here, eh?

shocker. Your equivalence to a white van and candy mask fails now jut like it did back when you were flirting dangerously with child molestation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those who no nothing about being a parent have no right to judge those who decide to abort. Abortion is the right of every woman even a childless woman may want to remain childless.

Well, I have three children and a grandchild, so I think I qualify as "noing" something about being a parent, so I guess in your eyes, I qualify to judge those who decide to abort. And I say it's wrong.

How many kids have YOU given birth to, and should you be shutting your cavernous piehole at this point?