abortion

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm sorry that you are unable to provide a cogent defintion
which is predicated on logic but, instead, on concepts which
entail the tacet acceptence of divine notions.

I should hope that, realizing your own ineptitude, you will
never vote in favor of a law that imposes your opinion on
other people.

Nemesio

I'm sorry that you are unable to provide a cogent defintion
which is predicated on logic but, instead, on concepts which
entail the tacet acceptence of divine notions.

Another veiled ad hominem and yet another reason I've given up discussing this matter... and please, I demand a retraction unless you clearly quote where any of my arguments "entail the tacet acceptance of divine notions."

Originally posted by Nemesio
Either a person is capable of thought (has the neurological aparatus
for cognative thought) or is not capable of it (lacks same).

There is nothing vague about this. It's totally transparent.

Furthermore, it is also transparent that things that lack the capacity
for cognitition lack the capacity to suffer. A tree (obviously lacking
in this capacit ...[text shortened]... it is self-evident that things that lack
this capacity cannot have a point of view.

Nemesio

There is nothing vague about this. It's totally transparent.

Then please... how does one objectively measure thought or the capability thereof? Who decides on the criteria; some rabid antihuman? I just get vague references to selfevidence, trees and rocks each time I ask the question.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]There is nothing vague about this. It's totally transparent.

Then please... how does one objectively measure thought or the capability thereof? Who decides on the criteria; some rabid antihuman? I just get vague references to selfevidence, trees and rocks each time I ask the question.[/b]

So, in the absence of overwhelming empirical evidence on both sides of this debate, isn't the best option to let the woman choose for herself?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So, in the absence of overwhelming empirical evidence on both sides of this debate, isn't the best option to let the woman choose for herself?

There is overwhelming empirical evidence that a fetus is a human being (a member of the species Homo Sapien). Both LJ and Nemesio concede this point. Their smoke and mirrors show of "moral considerability" is just an attempt to detract from the crucial question in this debate: Has society degenerated to the point where we are willing to take human life for social expediency?

Originally posted by Halitose
There is overwhelming empirical evidence that a fetus is a human being (a member of the species Homo Sapien). Both LJ and Nemesia concede this point. Their smoke and mirrors show of "moral considerability" is just an attempt to detract from the crucial question in this debate: Has society degenerated to the point where we are willing to take human life for social expediency?

You didn't answer my question. And it's not like abortion is anything new, so talk of degeneration is--emotional rhetoric.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You didn't answer my question. And it's not like abortion is anything new, so talk of degeneration is--emotional rhetoric.

You didn't answer my question

I most certainly did. Read between the lines...

And it's not like abortion is anything new

As a socially accepted on-demand medical procedure... you betcha. Go check in which year the Hippocratic Oath became the Hypocritic Oath by the removal of the clause "similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy".

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You didn't answer my question. And it's not like abortion is anything new, so talk of degeneration is--emotional rhetoric.

And it's not like abortion is anything new

Its a debate that has raged for over 30 years already. If that is old hat then why use a motor vehicle or an electric appliance. A shameless red-herring my friend.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm glad you said your point of view. Since it is an
opinion, I hope that you will never vote to impose a
law that is predicated upon it. Otherwise you are an
oppressor.

Nemesio

One other point about this sad post of yours.

If the laws of God couldn't or didn't establish man's righteousness,
what makes you think I'd favor a law of man to do that very thing?
If we are not motivated out of love, if we do not value each other
because of love, no law will bring about the necessary changes
within us. It is our hearts and minds that are so bent on selfishness
that has skewed our ruined souls so much so you can tell me that
my view could make me an oppressor, because I value human life,
and you are okay with its destruction at a stage of it that you deem
unworthy of value.
Kelly

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]I'm sorry that you are unable to provide a cogent defintion
which is predicated on logic but, instead, on concepts which
entail the tacet acceptence of divine notions.

Another veiled ad hominem and yet another reason I've given up discussing this matter... and please, I demand a retraction unless you clearly quote where any of my arguments "entail the tacet acceptance of divine notions."[/b]

I will retract nothing. You are asserting humans are worthy of
moral consideration because they are human.

This is an absurdity. Either they are worthy of such consideration
becaue they have traits which are intrinsically valuable, or they do
not. Your reluctance to answer my questions stems from the fact
that your 'argument' makes no sense. My comment is a statement
of fact: you have no argument.

Now, if you disagree with this, it should be trivial for you to
demontrate it. In fact, you can do so by stating a logically cogent
answer to the following question:

Why are humans valuable? (or what traits to human have that
make them valuable?)

I await your answer with baited breath. If you are going to puss out
and cry 'ad hominem,' then don't expect me to be respectful of your
position.

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
One other point about this sad post of yours.

If the laws of God couldn't or didn't establish man's righteousness,
what makes you think I'd favor a law of man to do that very thing?

I'm glad that you recognize that your position is predicated on your
notion of what God wants. I know that you would never oppress people
by insisting that they adopt your position.

Thanks KellyJay!

Nemesio

Originally posted by Halitose
Then please... how does one objectively measure thought or the capability thereof? Who decides on the criteria; some rabid antihuman? I just get vague references to selfevidence, trees and rocks each time I ask the question.

Watch your strawmen, Halitose. I never spoke about measuring thought. Just
the capability, or capacity for it.

Of course, by using the word 'thought' I was being sloppy. We are dealing with
consciousness which originates in specifc, measurable, locateable and testable parts
of the brain. Birds and mammals have these parts, whereas fish and bugs do not.
They are either there or they are not.

Totally objective. Totally measurable. Totally provable.

Why is the capacity for consciousness valuable? Because without consciousness
things cannot get better or worse from your point of view because, without it, you
have no point of view. If you smash a rock, the rock doesn't 'feel' worse. If you
cut down a tree, the tree doesn't 'feel' worse. If you slaughter a goat, it 'feels'
worse.

Now, LemonJello seems to think that consciousness is a necessary trait for moral
consideration, but not sufficient in and of itself. I would be curious to know what
other traits are necessary from his point of view.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Nemesio: "Ivanhoe: I write rather precisely. If I meant moral impermissibility, then I would have said it."

Then tell me what comes first ? Establishing the moral (im)permissibility or the legal (im)permissability of performing abortion ?[/b]

Comes first?

What does that mean? They have little to do with each other.

Moral permissibility has to do with moral action. That moral action can be
predicated on arbitrary rules within a culture (women must keep their hair
covered).

Legal permissibility has to do with rights.

Do they overlap? At times.

I hope that you are working on your defense of 'individual' and not getting too
distracted by the other activities here, Ivanhoe. I opened myself entirely in
my very candid presentation with the understanding that you would participate
similarly.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]You didn't answer my question

I most certainly did. Read between the lines...

And it's not like abortion is anything new

As a socially accepted on-demand medical procedure... you betcha. Go check in which year the Hippocratic Oath became the Hypocritic Oath by the removal of the clause "similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy".[/b]

Abortion has existed in written records for thousands of years and was socially accepted in ancient times. The genesis of the Hippocratic Oath's prohibition on abortion is fully explained in Roe v. Wade with the short answer being that Hippocrates held a view of life from conception that was not typical in the ancient world. YOU are asserting an ahistorical viewpoint; NO SOCIETY EVER considered a fetus from conception has a full human being. Please stop the sophistry.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Comes first?

What does that mean? They have little to do with each other.

Moral permissibility has to do with moral action. That moral action can be
predicated on arbitrary rules within a culture (women must keep their hair
covered).

Legal permissibility has to do with rights.

Do they overlap? At times.

I hope that you are working ...[text shortened]... y candid presentation with the understanding that you would participate
similarly.

Nemesio

You and others constantly switch between the two. It is confusing.

You asked me to show the legal impermissibility of abortion, while I am not at all working on this. I am studying the moral (im)permissability of abortion.

By the way, you seem to look upon the American judicial system as the only correct one, the universal system. It is not.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You and others constantly switch between the two. It is confusing.

You asked me to show the legal impermissibility of abortion, while I am not at all working on this. I am studying the moral (im)permissability of abortion.

By the way, you seem to look upon the American judicial system as the only correct one, the universal system. It is not.

Where do your morals come from?