Why Do Fetal Reductions Bother Pro-Choicers?

I made a quick comment in yesterday's post about how reductions trouble pro-choicers not because they're morally different from abortions, but because it's easier to see them for what they really are. This piece in Slate by William Saletan explains why:

For some, the issue seems to be a consumer mentality in assisted reproduction. For others, it's the deliberateness of getting pregnant, especially by IVF, without being prepared to accept the consequences. But the main problem with reduction is that it breaches a wall at the center of pro-choice psychology. It exposes the equality between the offspring we raise and the offspring we abort. 

Look up any abortion-related item in Jezebel, and you'll see the developing human referred to as a fetus or pregnancy. But when the same entity appears in a non-abortion item, it gets an upgrade. A blood test could help "women who are concerned that they may be carrying a child with Down's Syndrome." A TV character wonders whether she's "capable of carrying a child to term." Nuclear radiation in Japan "may put unborn children at risk."

This bifurcated mindset permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are "activated eggs." A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don't want is a pregnancy. Under federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother," but no such penalty applies to "an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman … has been obtained."

Reduction destroys this distinction. It combines, in a single pregnancy, a wanted and an unwanted fetus. In the case of identical twins, even their genomes are indistinguishable. You can't pretend that one is precious and the other is just tissue. You're killing the same creature to which you're dedicating your life.

[All links are from original article.]

You can try to hide what abortion is from yourself by manipulating language as much as you want (for example, by using the term "pregnancy" to refer to your child—a term that references only you, succeeding in completely eliminating the final bit of otherness that remained in the word "fetus"), but all the language in the world can't hide the truth when you see your pregnancy's twin sister.

Comments

[Daron]

ToNy,
With your defeater thoroughly defeated, let me lay the main question before you yet and yet again.

With no knowledge any of the potential differences between twin embryos can one rationally deem one of the embryos to be a human baby and deny that honour to the other? Is there any reason to believe that they are not both human babies if either one is?

Now, since you've made a claim (another error, but let's move forward if at all possible) that philosophical discussions are aimed toward arriving at objective truths, and since you fancy yourself a philosopher and this a philosophical discussion, it follows you believe in objective truth.
So it won't do you to fade into your postmodern stance and claim that the twins are whatever the subject deems them to be, and one can be one thing and one another depending upon their perceived value.
There is an objective reality here and you have accepted its existence.
So, is there reason intrinsic to the offspring to cherish and care for one (calling it a human baby) while killing the other (calling it a lump of tissue, a non-human, a parasite, etc.)?

[ToNy]

Daron,

The premises of the hypothetical were simple:

A: evolution is true
B: species exists.

Given this, you said that organisms never birth organisms of a different species.

Given the above premises and the definition of evolution you provided, this is of course an incorrect statement.

Yet, you will not admit as such.

I can only conclude at this point that I am not talking to a rational person.

Sometimes when i'm in a thread, I have to remind myself that i'm not necessarily conversing for the benefit of the person. But, for future members who will come here.

So for reference, i'll have to ask other users to read your comments hence far, and make up their own mind about whether or not you are engaging in rational discourse.

But, for now, it would not be fruitful for me to devote resources to you.

Good luck. But (for the first time in 6 years on this blog) I shall have to just skip reading and responding to this member's comments for now on.

[ToNy]

Trent,

>> "If another hominid could be shown to have a soul, I would consider it human."

video

[Daron]

ToNy,
And his future followers,

So for reference, I'll have to ask other users to read your comments hence far, and make up their own mind about whether or not you are engaging in rational discourse.

Yes, please do. That is all we can ask and is always our final appeal when we put our words in the public square.

Good luck. But (for the first time in 6 years on this blog) I shall have to just skip reading and responding to this member's comments for now on.

So nothing's going to change? I didn't think so.

[Louis Kuhelj]

ToNy

"couple problems with this rule

1. what about psychopaths?"

As a rule, by nature and as a group beings posses the ability to distinguish moral categories. Trotting out an exception that the medical establishment clearly accepts as an abnormality, does absolutely nothing to advance your argument. The weak nature simply shows in contrast the strength of mine. So, thank you for providing an appropriate backdrop that showcases it so nicely.

"2. zygotes can't do this"

A disability that the nature of an organism can fix on its own in time does not disqualify it from inclusion in the human family.

"3. chimps seem to do this"

You might be surprised at this, but I actually agree with at least one point that Frans makes in this clip. Religion is not necessary for understanding moral categories and the Christian worldview clearly supports this view as does the bible itself. However, the examples shown can easily be explained as an expression of an underlying fondness that exists between the chimps. I find the evidence to be ambiguous at best. I am simply not convinced that it rises to the level of understanding moral categories.

[ToNy]

Louis,

Given the above, then it would probably be the case that neanderthals would display the moral categories you seek.

Would you be of the opinion that they should not be assigned to a separate species?

I would still ask what method do you use to determine the range of genetic samples that are of the set of humans.

There are a few tolerance values that have been published over the years. Can i ask you which one is the objectively true one?

[Trent]

I don't have a link, the works of Hugh Ross et als at reasons.org make a distinction between souls and human souls.

With their definitions although earlier humans and animals had souls, there was divine intervention to create a new kind of soul around 50,000 B.C.E.

They have more details of exactly what they believe the difference is in their publications. I don't feel qualified to
fully explain it, but there are others who have taken the time to work out the details.

Unless you subscribe to that being the date the Anunnaki arrived.

[Bob]

Yay!

Anunnaki.

[RonH]

Brad,

Sorry, I didn't mean to scold. Really.

Please look again at the definition of negation.

The law of non-contradiction just restates what we mean by "A" (a proposition) and "not A" (its negation). That's all it does.

So I would just say the law of non-contradiction is contained in the definition of negation.

But if you prefer: The law of non-contradiction is grounded in the definition of negation.

RonH

[ToNy]

Trent,

typically, prolifers would avoid the "soul" word in a debate. For they cannot enter the secular city with a ruleset which defines when a construct receives a soul.

Instead, prolifers enter with a biological rulset that defines when a construct is human.

They do this on the presupposition that this ruleset exists as an objectively true property of the cosmos.

When in actuality, taxonomies for matter simply do not exists as objective truths.

For example, here is the criteria to determine which constructs in the cosmos are of the set of planets:

a planet is a celestial body which:

* is in orbit around the Sun,
* has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
* has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

Do you think either the criteria, or the set of planets objectively exists?

Or, are they just rules we have jotted down to organize the universe in the name of utility?

[Daron]

Looks like I did something wrong as my comment did not post.

Basically...
In case there are people other than ToNy who do not think his evolution argument has been soundly defeated, I go here to the man himself.
Darwin says:

Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.

[species do not birth new species - but, rather, varieties within the species]
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?

then, as varieties do not essentially differ from species, the same rule will probably apply to both;
[the offspring, varieties within a species, are not different enough from the parents to be a new species]
...
But a far more important consideration, as I believe, is that, during the process of further modification, by which two varieties are supposed on my theory to be converted and perfected into two distinct species, the two which exist in larger numbers from inhabiting larger areas, will have a great advantage over the intermediate variety, which exists in smaller numbers in a narrow and intermediate zone.
[varieties are not as distinct as species]

because new varieties are very slowly formed, for variation is a very slow process, and natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur,
[but even these varieties are formed very slowly, not parent to offspring...]
...
may have separately been rendered sufficiently distinct to rank as representative species. In this case, intermediate varieties between the several representative species and their common parent, must formerly have existed
[innumerable varieties must exist between two different species]
...
Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed;
[this is demanded by the theory]

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html

By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.

[it is necessary, if evolution is true, that species do not arise from different species, but are connected by countless varieties]
...
If then, there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life. We ought only to look for a few links, some more closely, some more distantly related to each other; and these links, let them be ever so close, if found in different stages of the same formation, would, by most palaeontologists, be ranked as distinct species.

[supposedly distinct species are separated by "an infinite number" of hese varieties]
...
If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process;

[what ToNy says is "necessarily" the case if evolution is true, is actually fatal to evolution]

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-09.html

[Daron]

Instead, prolifers enter with a biological rulset that defines when a construct is human.

No they don't. They have always known that humans birth humans. They enter the debate with a defeater for those who claim that humans conceive non-humans or that they can't be sure.

[Trent]

ToNy

I still don't think speciation is relevant unless you can show it actually it a factor anyone actually uses in making decisions to abort, and I think we can discount that in terms of differentiation between twins.

[ToNy]

Daron, (trent, louis, brad - you can go ahead and chime in)

Daron-that is an answer with some effort behind it--and not just a string of insults.

It's a post that is worthy of this blog.

you're trying.

you've earned a response.

First, folks should note above that the text in brackets is Daron's commentary -- not Darwin's. There are a couple of misconceptions there.

Second, ok we're finally getting to the heart of the issue.

The debate started because the first rule that prolifers usually throw out is this;

"One species cannot give birth to a different species. Hence, the resultant child is of the set of humans."

I mentioned, if evolution is true and species exist, this is not always the case.

Let us post the premises:

A: evolution is true
B: species exists

To better envision these premises, it would help if I reference a picture I drew in an earlier debate.

PICTURE

Premise A: If evolution is true, suppose that you photographed the mother of your cat. And further, suppose that you photographed her mother. And, her mother. And, her mother. Do this for billions of years. Now take all of your pictures and stack them into a big pile. When you are done, you will be able to "flip through" each picture very fast, and watch your cat evolving from a single-celled organism.

Premise B: If classes of species objectively exist, then draw a red line that extends from picture 1 to the final picture. Now, use your personal favorite species selection criteria, and, with a red pen, tick off the exact picture at which one species stops, and another species begins.

And there you have it.

You have now outlined cat evolution since the beginning of life on earth. Moreover, you can even pinpoint the exact photograph at which one organism birthed an organism of a different species.

This is why, if a Christian grants premise A and premise B, then they must see that their statement:

"One species cannot give birth to a different species."

is not always true.

Because, indeed, one species gives birth to a new species at each red tick mark in the above image.

Now, as Daron has pointed out: "Oh yeah, and don't forget you can't even define a species."

This is true.

I do not think the red tick marks on the vertical line objectively exist.

But rather, I think they are merely placed there for the purposes of organization.

Are they useful?

Sure.

But they do not objectively exist--any more than the line between my part of the house, and my brother's part of the house.

Now, if these red tick marks do not objectively exist, how does this effect the abortion issue?

Well, if the lines by which we divide organisms into classes (called species) do not objectively exist, then they are merely subjective conventions.

Hence, as to the one question that matters in the abortion debate:

"Which material constructs in the cosmos are of the set of humans?"

that, is a question that necessarily does not have an objectively true answer.

[Trent]

Ok

Here we are look atthe difference between philosophy and science.

While philosophy can show that something is conceptually true, it is not science until you can demonstrate it actually happening.

you can demonstrate that at one point in time you have organism 1, and at a later time you can have organism 2 which is similar enough to assume it is part of the same lineage but is different enough to be classified as different. You can make the assumption that the species changed over time, and you can make the assumption that that at some point the lineage changed from species 1 to species 2.

However to prove that one species gives birth to nother species, you require documented evidence of species 1 giving birth to species 2, that can be peer reviewed.

I was an undergrad when cold fusion was a big thing. There were lots of papers showing how it was done. No one has het been able to show that any of the papers,
which are internally consistent, actually have a basis Ian the real world.

There is the philosophy of science, and there is science. Too many people confuse the two and define science is whatever a scientist does. A good example of circular reasoning.

I am from a physics/engineering background, and not
biology. I will need documented evidence of something actually happening, rather than a hypothesis that is difficult to refute because of the vagueries of the English language.

[Daron]

ToNy,

you're trying.
you've earned a response.

Oh. Goody.
Sorry, ToNy, but everyone who converses in good faith deserves a response and, like this blog, deserves far more respect than you offer it.

Daron-that is an answer with some effort behind it--and not just a string of insults.

Sorry, ToNy, but you have earned all of my responses. It's called the conservation of snark and, much to my discredit, I tend to honour it.

Now, let's see how much you've decided to try to do more than insult.

There are a couple of misconceptions there.

No, there are not.

Second, ok we're finally getting to the heart of the issue.

You've actually ignored the heart of the issue as presented in the OP, by countless posters countless times, and by me at least three times. That is, when the parents themselves have deemed one embryo to be a human being worthy of love and life how can they (not someone who wants to deny any use of words) consistently call the embryo's twin a mass of tissue, or a sub-human parasite, or anything else other than a human being worthy of love?

Notice that the question has nothing to do with speciation, DNA, biology, etc.
You have muddied the issue to forward those ideas seemingly because you think they are shrouded in enough ambiguity that you can hide the real question.

You say the pro=life side always starts with the claim:

"One species cannot give birth to a different species. Hence, the resultant child is of the set of humans."

This misconception has been repeatedly shown to be wrong. The prolifer does not start with this. He responds with this because the pro-abortionist claims that the embryo is not human. Upon that failure the pro-abortionist says it is not a person. After that, he says it is a human and it is murder, but he's going to do it anyway.

I mentioned, if evolution is true and species exist, this is not always the case.

You didn't mention it; you used it to answer the question "are you claiming that humans often give birth to non-humans?" You said that were evolution true every species necessarily gives birth to another species. As we continue we see that you knew not only that this answer was nonresponsive (it does not answer the question "does a human often give birth to a non-human") but that you also knew your answer was wrong.

Premise B: If classes of species objectively exist, then draw a red line that extends from picture 1 to the final picture. Now, use your personal favorite species selection criteria, and, with a red pen, tick off the exact picture at which one species stops, and another species begins.

Oops, you can't help yourself to this "if". See, you have a species problem. And you have the problem of the philosophy of biology. When you deal in ambiguity and uncertainty as your stock in trade to create doubt, ToNy, you don't just get to dish out a plate of certainty whenever it suits you. There is no red tick because "species" is an arbitrary human construct, an artifact of taxonomy. Darwin shows plainly that what the theory shows us is that the continuum creates species for the very reason you are ignoring - the missing varieties in between. With your flippits, and with the case of the human and the offspring, we are not missing the varieties, therefore, we do not have a "point" at which the speciation happened, nor where you can put your red tick. On Uncommon Descent there is an evolutionary scientist who put forward the same thing just the other day. Her example was the change from adolescence to adulthood. We can tell what we have at the ends, but there is no point in the gradation where you can non-arbitrarily say it happened.

I asked you, and you ignored as you do over and over again because only you get to demand answers to hard questions, at what minute does it get dark at night?
Or, another of my favourites: at what age does a man become old?

You have now outlined cat evolution since the beginning of life on earth. Moreover, you can even pinpoint the exact photograph at which one organism birthed an organism of a different species.

No you can't. You can't complain that we can't even recognize a person, and his DNA can't even indicate he is human when we do not have a perfect and objective metric, and then turn around and say your arbitrary red tick has caught the moment of speciation.

Ah, but you actually know this, don't you? You have not been asking questions about pelicans but have been playing games.

This is why, if a Christian grants premise A and premise B, then they must see that their statement:
"One species cannot give birth to a different species."
is not always true.

No, he must not and I have shown you this countless times for several days. You said I "earned" a head-patting response but you still are not responding to the argument. All you are doing is ignoring the logic and restating your position. But it has failed.

Now, as Daron has pointed out: "Oh yeah, and don't forget you can't even define a species."
This is true.

Aha.

I do not think the red tick marks on the vertical line objectively exist.
But rather, I think they are merely placed there for the purposes of organization.
Are they useful?
Sure.
But they do not objectively exist--any more than the line between my part of the house, and my brother's part of the house.

See, I knew you understood. And yet you pretended not to.
As I said, you are not an honest "debater" (I am loathe to call these exercises "debates") and your behaviour is an insult to the blog and to those trying to talk to you.

Now, if these red tick marks do not objectively exist, how does this effect the abortion issue?

First, it demonstrates that you are dishonest when you claim:
1) that you are engaging in a philosophical discussion,
2) that philosophical discussions aim at objective truths,
3) that one species necessarily gives birth to another.
These claims are contradictory given your admission above.

Hence, as to the one question that matters in the abortion debate:
"Which material constructs in the cosmos are of the set of humans?"
that, is a question that necessarily does not have an objectively true answer.

False. This is not the one question that matters and failures of epistemology (if they exist in this case) do not dictate ontology and waving your hands toward ambiguities does not erase certainties.
It is objectively true that light is not dark even though we can't pick the moment at which light becomes dark. And it is a certain fact that a baby is not an adult even though along the way we can't pinpoint the exact moments that the individual passes through the stages from one to the other.

In the same manner, it is an objective fact that there are human beings, and that other beings are not humans, and that humans give birth to humans.
Your exploitation of the uncertainties of human epistemology does not change these facts and you ignore the philosophy of knowledge to do so.
You are doing precisely what the pro-abortionists (sometimes under the guise of scientific rigour) do when they say that the pre-born are not persons, or are not human, which then forces the prolife answer "yes it is". Then you claim that this is the starting point of the prolife advocate.

It is not. You have the logic backwards.
Just as he said "we should not commit infanticide by exposure" the pro-lifer says "we should not kill our babies in the womb".
And he is answered, but it is not a human, and I have the right to kill non-humans.
What? Of course it is human.
No it's not, prove it to me.
Wow, really?

====

As I have highlighted several times, there is zero consistency in your answers/challenges and they have nothing to do with advancing knowledge or even recognizing truth.
This is not an insult but an observation.

BTW,
Thank you for the effort you made to write sentences and enunciate ideas.
This is far more likely to earn respectful responses than the snarky, insulting, pot-shots you have engaged in over your six years here. It has been my hope that by treating you like you treat others I will have gotten you to see this.
Jury's out.

[Louis Kuhelj]

ToNy

"Given the above, then it would probably be the case that neanderthals would display the moral categories you seek."

Considering your change of subject to neanderthals, should I take it then that you do not disagree with my assessment of your three points?

[Daron]

I should clarify something. It is not the case that a parent does not birth a member of a different species solely because we cannot objectively select the division between two species this closely aligned. As the Darwin above illustrates, and as I have demonstrated through argumentation, the parent and offspring are closer to one another cladistically than varieties or subspecies than are two different species - according to the theory.

[ToNy]

Daron,

quite the rant

The premises were:

A: evolution is true
B: species exists

Now, as should be clear over the last couple years, I don't believe B is true. I'm fairly agnostic on A, and tend to think the jurys still out. I'm not sure, but I don't think you believe A is true.

But when we engage in philosophical discourse, we often adopt premises for the sake of argument.

And given the above two premises, you said that the below statement was still false:

"A species can give birth to a different species."

I have drawn out a very simple model that reveals that the above statement is true--given premises A and B.

If you still wish to hold that the above statement is false, then you shall have to tell me where my model is not congruous with evolutionary theory.

[Louis Kuhelj]

I also should clarify something here. I am not seeking a display of moral categories, but the demonstrated ability to think in and reason in and thereby understand moral categories. The display of moral categories (external behavior that might be driven by an understanding of moral categories) no more proves the understanding of moral categories than a parrot talking proves it is capable of authoring a novel.

[RonH]

ToNy and Daron,

I admit I have't read all 533 pages but isn't your dispute purely semantical?

BTW, I'm fine with: it's human and alive.

RonH

[Daron]

If you still wish to hold that the above statement is false, then you shall have to tell me where my model is not congruous with evolutionary theory.

Asked and answered.

Hi RonH,
Yes, of course it is. For you see, semantics is al; ToNy has. That is the crux of his argument.

BTW, I'm fine with: it's human and alive.

Thank you.

[Trent]

Regardless of how you define species (re: mother and offspring) no rational case has been brought forward to suggest that there is a difference between two fetuses of absolutely identical genetic makeup.

Even if everyone conceded everything to ToNy, the original topic is still not addressed.

Two identical organisms. One deemed worthy of life. One deemed a cell mass (ie like cancer or a mole). What is the difference that makes one worthy of life, and does the right of a woman to choose what happens to her body trump the right to not have your mother kill you?

I think in Ancient Rome it was up to the father, and they could kill adult children if they so chose. (I haven't seen that for a while, so I have no idea what to link to.) Do we find that acceptable? What about if a mother has a toddler, and it is tearing into her career time? Is it acceptable to kill it? If she has two, and only has the time and resources to raise one, can she take one out into the backyard and shoot it?

These are not questions of speciation.

[Daron]

In fact, notice what else ToNy now has admitted to.

He was asked:
"""unless you are actually claiming that humans often give birth to nonhumans."""

In his retort he said that, if evolution is true then, necessarily, every species gives birth to another species.

Not only is this not the case (countless examples of it never happening and no examples of it happening - so it is at very least not necessary), not only is it not possible under the paradigm ToNy is adopting for argument's sake, not only has ToNy already appealed tot he 'species problem' to create his ambiguities, but now he admits that in his non-responsive answer he was using the concept and term 'species' which he doesn't even believes represents objective reality (but he claims that he is engaged in an exercise whose goal is objective truth).

So on every level he knew he was not answering the question, "do humans often give birth to non-humans".
Why didn't he answer? Because then his ruse is over and in order to maintain this ruse he has had to abandon all the tools that would make him capable of answering.

[Trent]

If ToNy's question had any relevance, which I don't think it does, the issue is not whether species always give rise to other species, but whether individual members of a species always give rise to members of another species.

Since he has proffered no definition of a species, his question is meaningless. If he cannot define a species, he cannot assert that species give rise to other species, and thus he can never prove his assertions are correct.

He is merely playing a sophist game where he can't be shown to be wronkg because you can't pin him down on definitions enough to make an argument. The problem is that without the definition, his arguement falls apart and is self defeating.

He appears to simply be trying to keep people tied up long enough for the rest of us to move on to another thread and he can declare everyone conceded join by stopping arguing with him.

[Daron]

Trent,
I agree completely with each and every sentence in your last comment.

[ToNy]

Trent,

I do agree with you that this ancillary debate actually has very little bearing on the argument.

When you brought up that species don't give birth to other species, i merely stated that if evolution was true, then they did.

we both agreed and moved on, and that should have been the end of it.

but i feel it would be necessary to finish this other debate about darwinian evolution with daron before going back to the first issue.

[ToNy]

Daron,

I'm sorry i'm not going to attempt to parse your argument again.

Last time I did that, you simply said the quotes were out of context.

Hence i'll just have to post the question again:

========================================

The premises were:

A: evolution is true
B: species exists

Now, as should be clear over the last couple years, I don't believe B is true. I'm fairly agnostic on A, and tend to think the jurys still out. I'm not sure, but I don't think you believe A is true.

But when we engage in philosophical discourse, we often adopt premises for the sake of argument.

And given the above two premises, you said that the below statement was still false:

"A species can give birth to a different species."

I have drawn out a very simple model that reveals that the above statement is true--given premises A and B.

If you still wish to hold that the above statement is false, then you shall have to tell me where my model is not congruous with evolutionary theory.

[Daron]

Last time I did that, you simply said the quotes were out of context.

That doesn't sound like anything I ever said.

Yeah, ToNy, you can keep copy/pasting the same already answered question about your failed proposition. I guess you're testing to see if I will be the more mature one and quit responding first and that feels like winning to you.

So be it. I'm sure your future followers will be very impressed.

[Daron]

When you brought up that species don't give birth to other species, i merely stated that if evolution was true, then they did.

did he say that? I don't think so. I think he asked if you were claiming that humans often give birth to non-humans. You made a specious off-hand comment that you couldn't even remember making using terms you don't believe represent reality and which you can't define. And I defeated your argument using your own criteria.

we both agreed and moved on, and that should have been the end of it.

but i feel it would be necessary to finish this other debate about darwinian evolution with daron before going back to the first issue.

No you don't. The first issue is the OP and has been repeated many times.

[RonH]

"Reductions" remind me of the trolley problem.

There are pro-choice people that see a reduction as the same as any other abortion. (I do.) There are some who don't.

Similarly there are people who will push the fat man (I would) and those who, although they would throw the switch in the original formulation won't push the fat man.

(It is not necessary that the man be fat but that's how the story is told.)

Did the article get into why some pro-choice people see 'reductions' differently? I don't remember that it did.

RonH

[The Meister]

pro-choice is a good slogan name, but not very descriptive.

There are thigs I have a choice about, but still cannot do. I can choose not to pay my taxes. I still don't have the ability to not be sent to jail over it.

I can choose to use body cavities to carry drugs and explosives. That doesn't mean i have the right to do it, even though it is my own body.

I have the right to choose anything I want. I don't (and shouldn't) have the right to do anything I choose.

My position on the the reduction is the mother can choose to do anything she wants with her body. That has never been the issue. I don't think anyone would dispute that. The question is does she have the right to choose what she does with the child's body? That's where all the detail come in. Something that gets lost with sloganeering.

[RonH]

child is a good slogan name.

[The Meister]

your future well being is totally dependant on the number and future earning ability of slogans.

[ToNy]

Daron

I re-read your statement.

Most of it seems to be based on a confusion about what set of premises we were using for this argument.

Given that, i'm sorry, but I cannot tell which part of your statement addresses where my model fails in depicting evolution.

Until you respond, I cannot address your concern.

Hence i'll just have to post the question again:

========================================

The premises were:

A: evolution is true
B: species exists

Now, as should be clear over the last couple years, I don't believe B is true. I'm fairly agnostic on A, and tend to think the jurys still out. I'm not sure, but I don't think you believe A is true.

But when we engage in philosophical discourse, we often adopt premises for the sake of argument.

And given the above two premises, you said that the below statement was still false:

"A species can give birth to a different species."

I have drawn a very simple model that reveals that the above statement is true--given premises A and B.

If you still wish to hold that the above statement is false, then you shall have to tell me where my model is not congruous with evolutionary theory.

[The Meister]

That RonH, is yet to be shown as more than your personal opinion.

I don't know you, and don't want be insulting, but I don't think your personal opinions shape objective reality.

[RonH]

That The Meister, is yet to be shown as more than your personal opinion.

I don't know you, and don't want be insulting, but I don't think your personal opinions shape objective reality.

[The Meister]

What if I am New Age?

[ToNy]

Well looks like daron has bowed out.

So we'll have to let the public decide that one.

If anyone wants to chime in and take issue with the above model i've drawn out, go ahead and post a concern.

I looked to see what daron's retort was above. But he seems to just ignore premises A and B. If anyone reads his retort differently, and sees it as a viable argument, go ahead and post.

anyway, i'm sorry i neglected other questions from other users.

i'll glance up and have a look now.

[ToNy]

RonH, The Meister

what...r u guys debating "slogans" now...?

[ToNy]

Trent,

>> "Is it acceptable to kill it? ...can she take one out into the backyard and shoot it? These are not questions of speciation."

Well, yes, I would say that these are ultimately "questions of speciation."

For example, Trent believes a woman is allowed to take a chicken to her backyard and shoot it.

So there are some configurations of matter in the cosmos that Trent says she can shoot.

And, there are some configurations of matter in the cosmos that Trent says she cannot shoot.

Suppose that Trent and Tony agree that she ought not shoot any configuration of matter which is of the set of humans.

Hence, the question before us is merely:

"Which configurations of matter are of the set of humans."

Before we even attempt to answer this question, let us ponder if this is the sort of question that has a SUBJECTIVELY TRUE answer, or an OBJECTIVELY TRUE answer.

That would be the first question I would ask you. What's your response?

[Daron]

Nice try at winning, ToNy.
I have not bowed out for the evolution question is settled in my favour.
The real question, that of the OP, remains, though.

You've actually ignored the heart of the issue as presented in the OP, by countless posters countless times, and by me at least three (four) times. That is, when the parents themselves have deemed one embryo to be a human being worthy of love and life how can they (not someone who wants to deny any use of words) consistently call the embryo's twin a mass of tissue, or a sub-human parasite, or anything else other than a human being worthy of love?
Notice that the question has nothing to do with speciation, DNA, biology, etc.
You have muddied the issue to forward those ideas seemingly because you think they are shrouded in enough ambiguity that you can hide the real question.

[ToNy]

Daron,

oh you're still here!

Awesome.

I'd be happy to answer any of your questions. But I try not to keep too many debate threads going. And it would be important to tidy up this one first.

Since you feel your response has been outlined already, I don't think it would be too difficult for you to repaste it below.

I suppose if you refuse to argue for a third time, i'm just going to do my best to find the retort you claim is up there.

Then you're going to accuse me of a "reading failure" (as you said last time, hee hee) and then you're going to post your retort anyway.

So you can save us a step right now if you like...?

how bout it!

Here's the question:

========================================

The premises were:

A: evolution is true
B: species exists

Now, as should be clear over the last couple years, I don't believe B is true. I'm fairly agnostic on A, and tend to think the jurys still out. I'm not sure, but I don't think you believe A is true.

But when we engage in philosophical discourse, we often adopt premises for the sake of argument.

And given the above two premises, you said that the below statement was still false:

"A species can give birth to a different species."

I have drawn a very simple model that reveals that the above statement is true--given premises A and B.

If you still wish to hold that the above statement is false, then you shall have to tell me where my model is not congruous with evolutionary theory.

[Brad B]

Ok,so technicaly speaking was Adam the first scientist? Where did his authority derive, his phd if you will. Where did he get the tools to know birdness, reptileness, fishness or humanness?

[SteveK]

Some good news here

Planned Parenthood Closes ... Former Manager Speaks Out

[Daron]

Nice try at winning, ToNy.
I have not bowed out for the evolution question is settled in my favour.
The real question, that of the OP, remains, though.

[Daron]

Thanks, SteveK, for the good news.

[Trent]

Where the heck did I say anything about shooting chickens?

You are going out of your way to misrepresent people to drag speciation into examples that clearly do not have anything to do with it.

And your position is mothers can kill their toddlers because it is all right to kill chickens? I'd like to see that used as a criminal defence and see how far it gets. Are only vegetarians to be held accountable for murder?

My answer is that you are being deliberatly obtuse, and you would try to argue your way out of a murder by saying only humans are subject to laws and the officer can't prove you are human therefore the law doesn't apply to you.

[Trent]

I find it a bit disturbing that there is defence being given for killing young children like farm animals.

[ToNy]

Daron,

Then it should be easy to paste your victory below.