Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Really? It's possible I'm thinking of your failed defintions -- or failure to define! -- some other piece of terminology. But I'm pretty sure we've pretty much been through all of them by this stage. (Hence I'm not lightly "throwing them in" -- I'm referring back to similar difficulties with those, in turn.)Which is a fairly imaginative characterisation given you can't quote me ever setting out criteria for a human being before this particular exchange, never mind you pointing out any flaws in it?
I'm pretty sure I did, as have others. I refer you to the "totipotence" point, yet again.In fairness, throwing "person", "individual" etc in with "human being" may have nozzferrahhtoo in fits, but I'd suggest your throwing them in is probably your own attempt at obfuscating the fact that you never did explain to Absolam several times in the past the flaws in his criteria for "human being"
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Originally Posted by recedite
Potential for consciousness is something we don't often discuss. In preventing some individual from reaching their potential, are we not perpetrating some sort of offence against them?
Very much so, just as not cloning me from my toenail is an offence against my toenail.0 -
-
-
Ah... so it's possible you are claiming you've explained to Absolam several times in the past the flaws in his criteria for "human being", but in fact were thinking of some other criteria for something else entirely? Which will remain unspecified and unquoted, as well as unrelated?alaimacerc wrote: »Really? It's possible I'm thinking of your failed defintions -- or failure to define! -- some other piece of terminology.
Hmm. So if you think I've failed to define something else to your satisfaction at some point (without getting into anything like specifics), that in some way substantiates a claim that's fictional? I can't really see it, sorry.alaimacerc wrote: »But I'm pretty sure we've pretty much been through all of them by this stage. (Hence I'm not lightly "throwing them in" -- I'm referring back to similar difficulties with those, in turn.)
I'm pretty sure if you had, you'd be able to quote it.alaimacerc wrote: »I'm pretty sure I did, as have others. I refer you to the "totipotence" point, yet again.
And yet I didn't say that an absence of totipotence is what makes a genetically distinct tumour not a human being either. If you want to offer the argument feel free... it's just not minealaimacerc wrote: »Precisely. Likewise genetically distinct tumours, which would have an even stronger claims to be a (distinct) "human being" by your omission of such a criterion. 0 -
-
Mmm. So when you said "My position is just that the LEAST coherent or relevant method to do so is to play linguistic gymnastics by STEP 1: Finding SOME way to insert the word "Human" into the conversation (by pointing out that the DNA is human for example) and then using this as a launching board to switch at will to any other use of the word "Human" that the speaker feels supports the Anti Abortion position", did you intend that your opprobrium for such activity is reserved solely for those who use it in a pro choice argument?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You appear pretty keen to assign reactions to me I never had, and emotions to me I have never expressed, on this thread. Perhaps the key word above is "imagine" as that is all you appear to be doing about me.
Actually the idea that was mentioned was 'it is a religious delusion that the moment an egg is fertilised it attains a soul' which is a difficult assertion to prove. I think you just wandered astray at some stage....nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I never suggested they would be. I am merely responding to the idea of souls which was mentioned, the idea of proving there are no souls, and the relevance of souls to the discussion and how it should be treated if brought up. You are free to respond to what I said in that context, or you are free to ignore it and make some irrelevant remark about the church instead.
Oh, I think you know well I read your postsnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It might be useful, and indeed polite, if you were to read my whole posts before starting to reply to them because this was my point exactly. I very clearly said that if someones belief in souls stops them wanting an abortion or puts them against the idea, then so be it because this is irrelevant to me. I then very clearly went on to say it only becomes relevant when they proselytize that opinion by moving to ensure other people can not have abortions. So really you are now replying to my posts and merely repeating my own points back at me at this stage.
What you actually said was "If THEY want to go "satisfy themselves" as you put it then they are welcome to do so with no fight from me. "
I'm afraid you've a long way to go from acting in accordance with their own principles to "proselytize that opinion by moving to ensure other people can not have abortions". I simply don't see how preventing people from having abortions converts them to believing they shouldn't have abortions.
NO, you're telling me "The moment someone says "This zygote will become a human being" they have instantly, implicitly, by default, conceded it is not human now. If say "X will become Y" then you have instantly implied that X is not Y at this time. ". All I'm saying is that someone has yet to be shown to be saying this, before you even get to what that statement implies.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No, I am telling you what the words "X will become Y" mean. One of the things those words mean is that X is not Y now. If you want to pretend it means something else, have at it. But pretending it will not change it.
If I ever have a claim I feel the need to persuade you to accept, I'll certainly give it a gonozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The one of backing up something you claim. Try it sometime.
So if you do call a spade a spade, do you feel you have to substantiate the claim, or is it possible it won't make any difference to you whether others accept your definition?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am pointing out that simply throwing out a definition you have plucked arbitrarily out of the air and then suggesting others have to disprove or falsify it, is a shifting of the burden of proof. If you can substantiate the definition, by all means do. If you just want to assert it and move on, then I am simply calling a spade a spade there.
Except you seem to be having trouble with the "if I want to persuade you of that definition" part. Why do you think that is?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Exactly what I just said. Again you are merely repeating my own points back at me as if you are somehow adding something to the conversation. You do like filler it seems.
So there you go; neither of us have claimed it is so, so we are closer than you thought!nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Pretty sure I never suggested you did either. I have had people put words in my mouth before, but never put words I never said into their own mouths.
Do you think we'll find anyone changing their minds either way? It hasn't happened so far, so personally I wouldn't be too inclined to put a great deal of effort into it.....nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Well if you maintain an MO of assertion without substantiation and not offering any arguments that are in any way convincing, then you are going to find no one changing their minds. So not so much that people are maintaining par for the course, so much as you maintaining it for them.
Well, not hugely is a bit different from no more than, so maybe some opinions do change. If not hugely.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not hugely no. They are both merely a set of instructions for building something else. You are free to imagine me pretending things, along with your imagining words I never said and emotions I never felt nor expressed, but I am failing to see where this campaign of imagining things about me is meant to get you.
Oh, it's about as germane as "they will get no argument from me attempting to make them have one." I'd say.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »More of your irrelevant throw away commentary used as filler I see.
We're agreed then; I should. See, coming closer all the time!nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You should, especially given I never once suggested otherwise. I am addressing the content of their arguments, not your red herring irrelevancies about a right to an opinion or a vote.
In fairness, I made it firstnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I did not get the point, I MADE the point. You merely decided to misrepresent my having made the point as me having missed the point. And appear to wish to continue to do so for your red herring irrelevant post fillers.
I'm sure if anyone wants to put that forward as being the entirety of their argument, you'll do an admirable job of pointing it out. But since nobody here seems to be doing so, it's difficult to say if those you say held it as the entirety of their argument believed themselves that it was, in fact, the entirety of their argument.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Yet alas the point I am making is that all too often it is not just the point of the argument, it is the ENTIRE argument. I have genuinely engaged the Anti Choice side. On line on forums like this. Off line in public debates. And off line in approaching their little information tables plastered with photographs that many of us have seen around areas like Central Bank Dublin.
Is it possible that you may be mistaking an argument based on the concept of humanity (and I'll stipulate, it is in fairness quite an elastic concept), which may be expressed in many linguistic ways which are not intended to alter the concept being discussed, for linguistic acrobatics around the word "Human"? It might explain why it appears that time and time and time again different people present arguments which are founded entirely on linguistic acrobatics. Realistically, if the best argument someone can put forward is sleight of hand which requires deliberate construction, it's hard to imagine they're convincing themselves with it. And if they're not convinced, why would they bother trying to convince anyone else.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And all I am telling you is that time and time and time again the ENTIRE content and MO of the argument I am given is what I already described above related to linguistic acrobatics around the word "Human".
Ah, I see. I apologise, placing DNA is human in the same sentence as Humanity is what caused the problem there I think. How about:nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And there is more of the same linguistic gymnastics to which I refer. You are simply throwing out the concept of the DNA being Human DNA and merely leaping to the word "Humanity". You are not just making my point for me, you are representing my exact point better than I could if I had your username and password and was permitted to write your posts on your behalf. You are demonstrating _exactly_ what I am saying and adding comedy to it too by clearly being oblivious to the fact you are doing it.
Oh, I'm sure we can finesse "DNA is human" to something much more palatable. But if Humanity is not a prerequisite for having Human rights, I can't imagine what is?
To be clear; whether or not DNA is human, or a more palatable statement, is not intended to support the notion that Humanity would be a prerequisite for having human rights.
But I never said it had interests? I said being aborted was not likely to be in the foetus's best interests. You actually quoted me saying it. I neither asserted (vicariously or personally) that it had interests, or that existence was one of them, whether subjectively or arbitrarily. I'm starting to really wonder about your notions of 'linguistic trickery'....nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Quite the opposite. I am highlighting YOUR use of the word to score a point. I am calling it for what it is, the exact same linguistic trickery I have been describing all along. It's "interests" are irrelevant, it has none. You may be having some vicariously on its behalf and then assigning those to it.... but little more. You are not merely vicariously asserting it has interests, but asserting existence is one of them, all subjectively and arbitrarily.0 -
-
So when you said did you intend that your opprobrium for such activity is reserved solely for those who use it in a pro choice argument?
Not sure what this has to do with the text you are replying to in which I was pointing out your need to imagine emotions on my behalf that I never expressed. That aside however, when I said those words I was addressing the kind of argument being made, not the people making it.
I am merely explaining that, and why, it is a poor argument and entirely unconvincing. The best response you appear to have to me is either to assign emotions to me I never expressed, or go off on a red herring irrelevancy about how people have a right to an opinion or a vote. NONE of which replies to my arguments or points in even the smallest way.Actually the idea that was mentioned was a difficult assertion to prove. I think you just wandered astray at some stage
You may have but that is your problem not mine. I am merely addressing the entire argument of souls in eggs, its utility and relevance to the abortion argument, and where the onus of substantiation lies if such arguments are brought to the table. If you can not, or do not wish to, respond to those points then by all means do not. No one is admonishing you to do so, so there is no need to pretend I am wandering astray as a cover for your not responding to them.Oh, I think you know well I read your posts
What you actually said was "
And much like you "suspecting" I think things I do not or feel emotions I do not, every time you presume to know what I know or think..... you end up simply wrong. I know no such thing. And as I said your penchant for post dissection and responding to my points by throwing essentially my own points back at me is strongly suggestive that you do not read them that closely at all. As does....I simply don't see how preventing people from having abortions converts them to believing they shouldn't have abortions.
This response given I never claimed anything of the sort at all. My point was that if their faith instructs THEM not to have abortions, I see no problem with that. If their faith instructs them to enter into the abortion debate and move to prevent OTHERS from having them, then I will certainly interrogate them as to the substantiation behind their arguments. Not a difficult point to understand really, so not clear why you are misrepresenting it so poorly.All I'm saying is that someone has yet to be shown to be saying this, before you even get to what that statement implies.
I am telling you what the statement means and why it means that. Again, the moment someone claims the zygote has the potential to become a Human Being, they have explicitly said it is not a Human Being now. It is simple logic 101 stuff here that you are not going to negate simply by obsessively being obtuse about it. The simple fact is if one makes the claim that some X is becoming, or could become, some Y.... then they have expressly also indicated that X is not Y now. Bully for them if that happens to torpedo their own already incoherent position on the subject.So if you do call a spade a spade, do you feel you have to substantiate the claim
Yes, and I have been. Try it sometime, it is quite enjoyable. I, unlike many others, realize this is a debate forum and that if I make a claim I may be expected to have to back it up. So I always do. There are others who merely want to soap box their views, assert them unchallenged, and perform all kinds of linguistic feats to back track when asked to do so. Often taking the forum of retreat behind the old adages of "I have a right to a vote or opinion" as if anyone ever suggested otherwise.Except you seem to be having trouble with the "if I want to persuade you of that definition" part. Why do you think that is?
I have no issue with it at all. Another one of those times you assign and emotion or thought to me I never felt, had, or expressed. In fact I quite clearly, in plain language, indicated the EXACT opposite when I said that if you merely want to assert your definition and not defend it in any way, then I am perfectly ok with that too. But it seems you merely ignored that part of my post in order to feed this narrative of emotion you wish to assign to me that are not actually my own.Do you think we'll find anyone changing their minds either way?
I see it all the time actually. Perhaps given I am someone who does not just assert my views but defends and argues them too, I am infinitely more likely to have that experience than you who merely asserts things then back tracks into this "I am not defending it because I have no wish to convince you of anything" rhetoric when challenged on any of it.
But I do on line AND off line debates and I am quite politically activist on many issues, and people changing their minds is not alien to me at all. Both in real time before my eyes and with people returning to me after the fact telling me about a change in mind (much more often than real time, we are not a species that tends to change our mind drastically in real time).
So yes, I see people change their minds often. And I likely would not even both with ANY form of debate at all if I did not.Well, not hugely is a bit different from no more than, so maybe some opinions do change. If not hugely.
Linguistic pedantry is not going to dilute my position into something more palatable to you. If you have an issue with my analogy between Blueprints for chairs not being chairs, and Blue prints for a human not being a human, then I can not help you. But that is in fact my position. While there are more complexities in the latter case.... such as the fact a blue print for a chair does not have the faculties to self build that chair in some of the ways a Human cell does.... those complexities do not negate the analogy being made.
The simple fact is I see no argument, much less from anyone posting on this thread, to see the blue print for building a Human Being as itself BEING a human being.Oh, it's about as germane as "they will get no argument from me attempting to make them have one." I'd say.
Not a bit of it. There was a point to me saying that, unlike the throw away filler response you threw back at it. The simple fact is I draw a STRONG distinction between a persons personal beliefs informing them about their own choices, and a person using those beliefs to prevent others from making those choices. And that distinction is not going to go away by some throw away dismissive nonsense from you about them being afraid of me trying to make them have abortions.I'm sure if anyone wants to put that forward as being the entirety of their argument, you'll do an admirable job of pointing it out. But since nobody here seems to be doing so
Except they are, and I even called you out on examples of it in your previous post. And as I said it is an "argument" that makes up the vast majority of my experiences on and off line in debates with the Anti Abortion Lobby.Is it possible that you may be mistaking an argument based on the concept of humanity
Not mistaking it at all. I am merely calling it for what it is when I have observed it happening. The Anti Abortion Lobbyists I have encountered have clearly recognized that we all want to assign Human Rights to Human Beings. So it is simply a natural move for them to make to prevent Abortion by attempting to have that concept of "Human Being" applied as early as possible in the process. Their only path to doing so is clear, to try and get the word "Human" applied as early as possible in the process and simply jump to "Human being" and "Human rights" from there.
And this is exactly what is being done by those who throw out arguments of the form "It is clearly human DNA and it is clearly alive therefore....."Oh, I'm sure we can finesse "DNA is human" to something much more palatable. But if Humanity is not a prerequisite for having Human rights, I can't imagine what is?
And in this I entirely agree. Humanity is a good pre-requisite for Human Rights. But "Humanity" like "Human" is another one of those philosophically elastic concepts around which more of the same linguistic acrobatics can be performed. Context is everything son, and in the context of "Human Rights" I have not seen a SINGLE philosophical argument for assigning a concept of "Humanity" to mere Human DNA. Just the same old canard of Human DNA --> Therefore Humanity --> Therefore Human Rights. Essentially using Non Sequitur as a philosophical chess move.But I never said it had interests? I said being aborted was not likely to be in the foetus's best interests.
And I never said you said it had interests. So the linguistic trickery is once again yours not mine. I am merely pointing out that the statement you did make is irrelevant and a red herring given that it has not been demonstrated the entity HAS interests of any kind at all. So you can wonder all about linguistic trickery if you so wish, but the point I am actually making is not a difficult one to comprehend, nor was it predicated on a suggesting you actually did say it has interests.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Listening too much to the following typical equivocations, misrepresentations, delusions, biological illiteracy & outright falsehoods found on the mainstream media from certain individuals such as :- “tis killing babies Joe/ tis murder Joe/ the ‘right to life from conception’ slogan / my right to stick my nose into your business and force you to do something against your will (my paraphrase)” would drive most people to distraction.
It’s medieval to force any person (only women in this case) to do something against their will. Such coercion goes directly against the trajectory of societal development of the last 800 years or more.
If anti-choice thinking raises your blood pressure to danger levels I would recommend the following (as suggested by a regular poster somewhere recently) plus a strong cup of coffee. I think this is the benchmark for sane, mature abortion rights - it’s a relief to read about it.Wiki wrote:…. since then [1988] Canada has had no criminal laws governing the subject, and abortion is a decision made by a woman with her doctor. Without legal delays, most abortions are done at a very early stage.
… This number [of abortions] has been decreasing since at least 1998….
The fact that no subsequent government has re-visited this decision has been what has led to the unique situation of Canada having no abortion law whatsoever. Abortion was now treated like any other medical procedure, governed by provincial and medical regulations.
I was initially addressing the “right to life from conception” argument. Interesting that it turned out, you don’t accept this argument either!!It does if you consider that the primary right of an individual is the right to life, in fact in that light, how can a society be a civilised, pluralist, democracy when it ignores that most basic right of an individual?
As oldrnwisr & others have addressed this so comprehensively here it can said to be resolved (again, it seems
); but of course, will that stop all the usual suspects in wider society from ignorantly spouting this line whenever abortion comes up again. I think we can all agree - that would be a no.
Btw, it’s amusing to be accused of introducing red herrings. When I mentioned some religions claim the egg attains a soul at conception, I put a roll eyes emoticon after it. I was implying it was an off-hand joke – after all those-of-little-faith are sometimes known to darken the doors of this den of iniquity.
I’m also with oldrnwisr in that I think the following time periods are much more interesting to assess for pro-choicers (which I need to look into in more detail):-Now, IMHO, the first point that should give us pause in this debate is at about 12 weeks when brainwave patterns become detectable….... In fact, the most careful period to consider is the period between 13 weeks and 20 weeks because we have seen from the statistics that abortions performed after 20 weeks are more likely to be performed for serious non-trivial medical reasons.0 -
Oh, it was where you expressed your distaste for a particular kind of argument; I didn't need to imagine emotions on your behalf, I opined that you might be exercised by a similar style being used by posters. Obviously you're not. I wonder would it be the case if they had been pro choice posters.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not sure what this has to do with the text you are replying to in which I was pointing out your need to imagine emotions on my behalf that I never expressed. That aside however, when I said those words I was addressing the kind of argument being made, not the people making it.
I understand, and I'm sure given the opportunity you'd say you'd find the same thing equally poor and unconvincing from a pro choice poster.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am merely explaining that, and why, it is a poor argument and entirely unconvincing. The best response you appear to have to me is either to assign emotions to me I never expressed, or go off on a red herring irrelevancy about how people have a right to an opinion or a vote. NONE of which replies to my arguments or points in even the smallest way.
No, I haven't; I still think it's a difficult assertion to prove.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You may have but that is your problem not mine. I am merely addressing the entire argument of souls in eggs, its utility and relevance to the abortion argument, and where the onus of substantiation lies if such arguments are brought to the table. If you can not, or do not wish to, respond to those points then by all means do not. No one is admonishing you to do so, so there is no need to pretend I am wandering astray as a cover for your not responding to them.
Well, I'm sure you know your own mindnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And much like you "suspecting" I think things I do not or feel emotions I do not, every time you presume to know what I know or think..... you end up simply wrong. I know no such thing. And as I said your penchant for post dissection and responding to my points by throwing essentially my own points back at me is strongly suggestive that you do not read them that closely at all.
Well, again what you actually said was "it only becomes relevant when they proselytize that opinion by moving to ensure other people can not have abortions"nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »As does....This response given I never claimed anything of the sort at all. My point was that if their faith instructs THEM not to have abortions, I see no problem with that. If their faith instructs them to enter into the abortion debate and move to prevent OTHERS from having them, then I will certainly interrogate them as to the substantiation behind their arguments. Not a difficult point to understand really, so not clear why you are misrepresenting it so poorly.
Proselytising is converting or attempting to convert someone to your beliefs. Hence my response; I simply don't see how preventing people from having abortions converts them to believing they shouldn't have abortions.
You're telling me people are making this statement; I'm telling you I'm not seeing anyone making it. If someone decides to make the statement, they may have a simple logic 101 reasoning to back it up, but until then you're arguing against something no one seems to be saying.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am telling you what the statement means and why it means that. Again, the moment someone claims the zygote has the potential to become a Human Being, they have explicitly said it is not a Human Being now. It is simple logic 101 stuff here that you are not going to negate simply by obsessively being obtuse about it. The simple fact is if one makes the claim that some X is becoming, or could become, some Y.... then they have expressly also indicated that X is not Y now. Bully for them if that happens to torpedo their own already incoherent position on the subject.
I'm not so sure; you've yet to substantitate the claim that anyone is offering the arguments you're arguing against, for instance.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Yes, and I have been. Try it sometime, it is quite enjoyable. I, unlike many others, realize this is a debate forum and that if I make a claim I may be expected to have to back it up. So I always do. There are others who merely want to soap box their views, assert them unchallenged, and perform all kinds of linguistic feats to back track when asked to do so. Often taking the forum of retreat behind the old adages of "I have a right to a vote or opinion" as if anyone ever suggested otherwise.
And yet you still seem rather exercised by the notion that posters might assert their views unchallenged, and perform all kinds of linguistic feats to back track when asked to do so. that seems rather conflicted.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I have no issue with it at all. Another one of those times you assign and emotion or thought to me I never felt, had, or expressed. In fact I quite clearly, in plain language, indicated the EXACT opposite when I said that if you merely want to assert your definition and not defend it in any way, then I am perfectly ok with that too. But it seems you merely ignored that part of my post in order to feed this narrative of emotion you wish to assign to me that are not actually my own.
It doesn't seem likely; we're both reading the exact same discussions here in fairness.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I see it all the time actually. Perhaps given I am someone who does not just assert my views but defends and argues them too, I am infinitely more likely to have that experience than you who merely asserts things then back tracks into this "I am not defending it because I have no wish to convince you of anything" rhetoric when challenged on any of it.
I've no doubt nothing would dilute your position into something more palatable to menozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Linguistic pedantry is not going to dilute my position into something more palatable to you.
Which is all well and good; what I was wondering was whether you could see that a human zygote has more in common with a human adult than a blueprint for a chair has in common with a chair.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The simple fact is I see no argument, much less from anyone posting on this thread, to see the blue print for building a Human Being as itself BEING a human being.
Maybe you just didn't realise how germane it was to your not at all throw away filler comment then?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not a bit of it. There was a point to me saying that, unlike the throw away filler response you threw back at it. The simple fact is I draw a STRONG distinction between a persons personal beliefs informing them about their own choices, and a person using those beliefs to prevent others from making those choices. And that distinction is not going to go away by some throw away dismissive nonsense from you about them being afraid of me trying to make them have abortions.
And as I pointed out; it wasn't intended to support the notion, you simply read it that way. Which begs the question are you simply reading other similar propositions the same way, and failing to consider that the point being offered is not the one you think it is.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Except they are, and I even called you out on examples of it in your previous post. And as I said it is an "argument" that makes up the vast majority of my experiences on and off line in debates with the Anti Abortion Lobby.
So, if for instance the word Human is used in a discussion, and then the words"Human being" and "Human rights" are also used, is the first always used in order to jump to the second and third, or is it at all possible that all three might appear cogently in a discussion, without any desire to link the three in some sort of magical trifecta that creates some sort of mystical power argument?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not mistaking it at all. I am merely calling it for what it is when I have observed it happening. The Anti Abortion Lobbyists I have encountered have clearly recognized that we all want to assign Human Rights to Human Beings. So it is simply a natural move for them to make to prevent Abortion by attempting to have that concept of "Human Being" applied as early as possible in the process. Their only path to doing so is clear, to try and get the word "Human" applied as early as possible in the process and simply jump to "Human being" and "Human rights" from there.
So, when something that is clearly human DNA (lets say we tested it in a lab to be sure) and clearly alive (an excellent biologist assured us of all seven characteristics firing on all cylinders), therefore it is alive human DNA.... what? Human, Human being, Human rights, tada everyone must agree with me I have the magic of three? I still can't see where you think people who would offer this line of argument think they will end up?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And this is exactly what is being done by those who throw out arguments of the form "It is clearly human DNA and it is clearly alive therefore....."
I haven't seen an argument for it either. Nor have I seen the argument "Human DNA --> Therefore Humanity --> Therefore Human Rights" (which seems to be the same thing?) offered either.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And in this I entirely agree. Humanity is a good pre-requisite for Human Rights. But "Humanity" like "Human" is another one of those philosophically elastic concepts around which more of the same linguistic acrobatics can be performed. Context is everything son, and in the context of "Human Rights" I have not seen a SINGLE philosophical argument for assigning a concept of "Humanity" to mere Human DNA. Just the same old canard of Human DNA --> Therefore Humanity --> Therefore Human Rights. Essentially using Non Sequitur as a philosophical chess move.
Well... you did. You said "You are not merely vicariously asserting it has interests, but asserting existence is one of them". It's not really linguistic trickery to point out you said what you said.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And I never said you said it had interests. So the linguistic trickery is once again yours not mine. .
And again, no one said it had interests of any kind at all. What I said was being aborted was not likely to be in the foetus's best interests. You actually quoted me saying it. I neither asserted (vicariously or personally) that it had interests, or that existence was one of them, whether subjectively or arbitrarily.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am merely pointing out that the statement you did make is irrelevant and a red herring given that it has not been demonstrated the entity HAS interests of any kind at all.
Well, I've a better idea of what you think linguistic trickery is nownozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So you can wonder all about linguistic trickery if you so wish, but the point I am actually making is not a difficult one to comprehend, nor was it predicated on a suggesting you actually did say it has interests 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement