A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[Ravi]

semantics. This is why people like Ravi don't want to discuss the genetics fact of an individual zygote. Murder? thats debatable. but an abortion is most certainly KILLING a fetus.

You're against semantics: the study of meanings. Cool, so you won't object if I call Muslims Islamofacists...because they are Islamic and they are patriarichal....which is pretty damn close to fascism.

 

[Agnapostate]

it would be obvious

again, you fail. You ASSUME that every individual factors the same variables exactly like your OPINION when calculating the value of utility. This is why you keep failing to realize that the utilitarian paradigm is nothing less than worthless when making such bullshit generalizations about universal value or it's relevance as a logical standard.

I've said no such thing. On the contrary, any legitimate measurement through the application of felicific calculus must be characterized by in-depth analysis, which may necessitate an argumentative dialogue. So rather than being based on "one opinion," legitimate felicific calculations are based on a lively exchange of input.

For instance, why don't you tell us why a mild slap causes a more intensity of severe suffering than cutting off someone's arms and legs, just to consider the first criterion?

maybe you need to have yourself a "take your daughter to the zoo" day and do some serious comparing and contrasting.

You're running in circles now. The element of personal emotional partiality has already been addressed. I'd point out what a pathetic spectacle this is if it wasn't so amusing.

after all.. far be it for me to point out your Appeal to Authority when wrapping yourself up in singer's opinion of the utility standard....

I haven't mentioned Singer in regards to any "utility standard." If you knew anything about ethics, you'd know that his work is primarily in the applied area, and he's done very little in terms of meta-ethical theory. If you're referring to my citation of Bentham, that does not constitute an ad verecundiam fallacy because the doctrine of felicific calculus is not dependent upon him for logical soundness. You might want to read up on your argument logic, along with your ethics.

 

[Diuretic]

I merely stated that I didn't think kill was the proper term because you can't kill something that isn't living (or a person, as Nemesis pointed out). Of course you can kill a virus, etc...but the proper term for abortion IS abortion since it is aborting the unfinished product, so to speak, and not killing a person.

Anywho, I explained this somewhere up the thread and asked how my explanation was inconsistent with my original statement...and of course that question was ignored.

It looks like the discussion degenerated into semantics but as I indicated, words are important in these types of discussions. "Kill" implies violence in its ordinary useage I think but the word does have an original meaning and that means to end existence. Anyway, abortion, termination, whatever we want to call it, I think describes the technical process of killing the foetus. I'm not going to shy away from that concept, it is killing a foetus. Having said that, it's not murder or killing a human being.

 

[manifold]

My question was clarified later on in the thread. And you still haven't answered it.

I can't find it.

Right here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...a-fetus-is-not-alive-waaah-2.html#post1147914

But I guess it's easier to call me a cuntrag, post **** you on my message board and neg rep me than answer a simple question.


Epic meltdown on your part...especially in a thread you started to flame me.

It's pretty clear you still haven't recovered from having made such a stupid comment. And me pointing it out must really burn..

Oh, and you're a liar again. That link contains no question whatsoever, let alone an unanswered question. Seriously, you're slipping.

 

[Diuretic]

It's not a stupid statement. Heck everyone speaks in a first draft, they usually write in a first draft on forums, I know I do and if I use a word or phrase that might be open to interpretation I expect a reader to at least give me the benefit of accepting the obviously intended meaning. There's a technical phrase for that, can't think of the proper terminology but someone here might know it.

 

[Agnapostate]

It's not a stupid statement. Heck everyone speaks in a first draft, they usually write in a first draft on forums, I know I do and if I use a word or phrase that might be open to interpretation I expect a reader to at least give me the benefit of accepting the obviously intended meaning. There's a technical phrase for that, can't think of the proper terminology but someone here might know it.

The principle of charity.

 

[Diuretic]

It's not a stupid statement. Heck everyone speaks in a first draft, they usually write in a first draft on forums, I know I do and if I use a word or phrase that might be open to interpretation I expect a reader to at least give me the benefit of accepting the obviously intended meaning. There's a technical phrase for that, can't think of the proper terminology but someone here might know it.

The principle of charity.

That's it! Thanks Nemesis

At least I didn't call it the mercy rule!

 

[manifold]

It's not a stupid statement. Heck everyone speaks in a first draft, they usually write in a first draft on forums, I know I do and if I use a word or phrase that might be open to interpretation I expect a reader to at least give me the benefit of accepting the obviously intended meaning. There's a technical phrase for that, can't think of the proper terminology but someone here might know it.

I disagree. Stupid is stupid, regardless of whether first draft or twelfth. It may be less egregious on a first draft sure, but it's still stupid. But always the more telling aspect is how one responds when made aware of their stupidity.

 

[Diuretic]

It's not a stupid statement. Heck everyone speaks in a first draft, they usually write in a first draft on forums, I know I do and if I use a word or phrase that might be open to interpretation I expect a reader to at least give me the benefit of accepting the obviously intended meaning. There's a technical phrase for that, can't think of the proper terminology but someone here might know it.

I disagree. Stupid is stupid, regardless of whether first draft or twelfth. It may be less egregious on a first draft sure, but it's still stupid. But always the more telling aspect is how one responds when made aware of their stupidity.

Okay then.

I think I'll go and post on the Marilyn Chambers thread now.

I need a bit of light relief.

Don't ever enlighten me about my own stupidity though, I've long suspected it of myself but I've perfected denial

 

[krotchdog]

What makes you think it is a parasite? Sounds like a pretty retarded opinion.

Ravi, I may of been to tough on you in your PBS/abortion/conservative thread, I did not see your response yet, I have not been back but I would love to here your response.

Do you always post so quickly, a parasite is something that lives off its host, like in the alien movie. Hopefully if you read enough of my posts you will begin to think of them as your orignial thought, like the pbs special.

So names aside, when is the xxxx viable out of the womb?

 

[Ravi]

I can't find it.

Right here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...a-fetus-is-not-alive-waaah-2.html#post1147914

But I guess it's easier to call me a cuntrag, post **** you on my message board and neg rep me than answer a simple question.


Epic meltdown on your part...especially in a thread you started to flame me.

It's pretty clear you still haven't recovered from having made such a stupid comment. And me pointing it out must really burn..

Oh, and you're a liar again. That link contains no question whatsoever, let alone an unanswered question. Seriously, you're slipping.

I asked you what was inconsistent between my original statement and my comment to Jillian that you claimed was inconsistent with my original statement. And you still haven't answered the question. Methinks you are the one that is stupid.

 

[Ravi]

It's not a stupid statement. Heck everyone speaks in a first draft, they usually write in a first draft on forums, I know I do and if I use a word or phrase that might be open to interpretation I expect a reader to at least give me the benefit of accepting the obviously intended meaning. There's a technical phrase for that, can't think of the proper terminology but someone here might know it.

No, I meant what I said. If that makes me appear stupid, so be it.

 

[Ravi]

What makes you think it is a parasite? Sounds like a pretty retarded opinion.

Ravi, I may of been to tough on you in your PBS/abortion/conservative thread, I did not see your response yet, I have not been back but I would love to here your response.

Do you always post so quickly, a parasite is something that lives off its host, like in the alien movie. Hopefully if you read enough of my posts you will begin to think of them as your orignial thought, like the pbs special.

So names aside, when is the xxxx viable out of the womb?

Point it out, I don't know what statement you are looking for a response to.

A parasite lives off its host without benefiting its host and I'm thinking that there is an actual benefit to bearing a child so I'm going to say parasite isn't the proper word.

 

[Diuretic]

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.

Sir Francis Bacon.

So why do we post? To confirm our certainties? Or to explore our doubts?

I admit I do both, at different times.

 

[manifold]

Right here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...a-fetus-is-not-alive-waaah-2.html#post1147914

But I guess it's easier to call me a cuntrag, post **** you on my message board and neg rep me than answer a simple question.


Epic meltdown on your part...especially in a thread you started to flame me.

It's pretty clear you still haven't recovered from having made such a stupid comment. And me pointing it out must really burn..

Oh, and you're a liar again. That link contains no question whatsoever, let alone an unanswered question. Seriously, you're slipping.

I asked you what was inconsistent between my original statement and my comment to Jillian that you claimed was inconsistent with my original statement. And you still haven't answered the question. Methinks you are the one that is stupid.

You mean it isn't obvious?
The original statment expresses the view that a fetus isn't alive, and Jillian's acknowledges that it is. Is this one of those times where you feign ignorance?

 

[Ravi]

I said this:

...he uses the word kill to describe abortion and I feel that is not the proper term as you can't kill something that isn't alive.

I explained my meaning here:

A fetus is not alive in the same sense as a living, breathing person...it is alive in the same sense as a sperm, or a finger, or a toe...though it does have greater potential to become a living, breathing human than the other three do...as of now, anyway.

You claimed these two statements are inconsistent. I asked why. You still haven't answered, all you have done is call me nasty names and a liar.

 

[manifold]

"isn't alive"

"It is alive"

Two contradictory statements. I really don't believe I can explain it in more simple terms.

 

[Shogun]

semantics. This is why people like Ravi don't want to discuss the genetics fact of an individual zygote. Murder? thats debatable. but an abortion is most certainly KILLING a fetus.

You're against semantics: the study of meanings. Cool, so you won't object if I call Muslims Islamofacists...because they are Islamic and they are patriarichal....which is pretty damn close to fascism.

like you need an excuse to dip your posts in ignorant sauce, ravi.. by all means, say what you want to say, yo. Your posts are what you are judged for, after all.

 

[Shogun]

I've said no such thing. On the contrary, any legitimate measurement through the application of felicific calculus must be characterized by in-depth analysis, which may necessitate an argumentative dialogue. So rather than being based on "one opinion," legitimate felicific calculations are based on a lively exchange of input.

For instance, why don't you tell us why a mild slap causes a more intensity of severe suffering than cutting off someone's arms and legs, just to consider the first criterion?


I guess this is where you should have posted a link to that "lively exchange" that decided that a human at ANY stage has less utility than a primate at ANY stage. I'm not really interested in hashing over the nature of your assumptions through utilitarianism. If you've got tangible evidence that a baby monkey has more utility than a Human Fetus then go ahead and post a link. Otherwise, spare me the bullshit jargon from an ethical standard that seems to have given you a reason to hump Singer's leg.

Regarding your harsh slap/amputation scenario: This is where it becomes blatantly obvious that your OPINION is the sole mitigating factor. Would a slapped holocaust victim whose family has been gassed as she faces being raped by a nazi SUFFER MORE than a drunk driver whose .35 blood alcohol level caused an accident that amputated his leg? I guess THAT depends on the standard measure of SUFFERING, eh? Which, let me point out, you don't really have a claim to define outside of your bullshit ethical standard.

WHY do you think Ethics and Philosophy are closely related as subjects, dude? Descartes SOUNDS good on college t shirts and posters but his opinion, much like yours, means two things at the end of the day: Jack and Shit.


You're running in circles now. The element of personal emotional partiality has already been addressed. I'd point out what a pathetic spectacle this is if it wasn't so amusing.

I guess a little realty WOULD become the pin that burst your silly little balloon, eh? The fact remains, if YOU can't fathom the inherent imperative to place a HUMAN LIFE above that of a ******* monkey then...


I haven't mentioned Singer in regards to any "utility standard." If you knew anything about ethics, you'd know that his work is primarily in the applied area, and he's done very little in terms of meta-ethical theory. If you're referring to my citation of Bentham, that does not constitute an ad verecundiam fallacy because the doctrine of felicific calculus is not dependent upon him for logical soundness. You might want to read up on your argument logic, along with your ethics.


Bentham, my bad.. And yes, you specifically appealed to the calculus derived from Utilitarian standards as if THEY were, by definition, universally validated by name dropping and jargon use. By all means, dude... dodge left and right if you need to. You are not the first pseudo intellectual trying to dazzle the crowd with Ethics 101 crap that means othing outside of your accepted paradigm. THIS is why you have to keep assuming that no one knows that they are talking about except you. Meanwhile, your leap for utilitarian excuses trying to rationalize a primate life above that of a human at ANY stage keeps the FAIL IMAGE industry from going out of business..

 

[Valerie]

"isn't alive"

"It is alive"

Two contradictory statements. I really don't believe I can explain it in more simple terms.

It's OBVIOUS, to anyone with half a brain, what Ravi meant by what she said within the context of the discussion. What I'd like to know is...WHY haven't you started a thread about this JOKER Nemesis who thinks using big scientific words can hide his RIDICULOUS assertion that an infant is not a person???