« The Right to Fashion Our Lives How We Want | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

August 19, 2011

Comments

Hi RonH, since you know the answers to the question, I hope to clarify something first. Technically I erred in including the law of identity as self attesting or ultimate since it depends on the law of non contradiction. It would still classsify as axiomatic or generally considered self evident such that to contest the truth of it is to use it in some form. It is therefore incoherent to challenge it--but go ahead I'm sure.

What ever you angle is, I'm sure I'll be enlightened.

The law of non contradiction is the self attesting proposition that two contradictory claims cannot be true or more succinctly, it is self evident that A cannot be non A at the same time, and in the same sense.

btw,
The firefighter is at least consenting to his own risk and is in fact paid to take this risk. He always has the freedom to not have this risky job. Having taken the job his duty is to place his own life as secondary to the live of those in danger.

???

How is a firefighter's risk while attempting to save people not an analogy of the mother's danger in having the child?

Daron,

Here is the original paper.

Please look at Table III. Violent deaths explain why women who had had an abortion died more often than women that gave birth.

Is there some reason to think these violent deaths were some how caused by the abortions? If not, what is left of your point?

RonH

The fireman, at risk if he enters the building is more at risk of suicide, accidental death and death by natural if he chooses not to. Only a fraction of firemen, maybe one percent, fail to enter because they fear for their own lives.
The vast, vast majority choose not to for other reasons not associated with risk. What becomes of the point? It goes up in smoke because it was a misdirection.

OK now Brad, when you say...

A cannot be non A at the same time, and in the same sense
...what do you mean by that first "A"?

In other words, hat does "A" stand for win that first instance?

I'll guess you mean "A" to stand for a thing. Some thing. Any thing. Anything at all. Is that right?

RonH

:) I meant to say...

In other words, what does "A" stand for in that first instance?

"A" = a proposition, a truth statement.

Jesse,

>> "ToNy was never an ovum."

It's not enough in philosophy to merely restate your conviction as your argument.

You'll have to give me a reason as to why you think that this is objectively the case. And why you think my argument with Josh Bahmm is not warranted.

Trent,

>> "unless you are actually claiming that humans often give birth to nonhumans."

If evolution is true, all species necessarily give birth to different species eventually of course.

>> I make an assumption that a human father and a human mother produce human children...

Try to devise an experiment in which you could determine if any given construct was of the set of humans or not. Ask yourself, "What would this experiment look like? How might I setup this experiment?"

If evolution is true, all species necessarily give birth to different species eventually of course.
Even if "evolution is true" this only holds if something like Goldschmidt's rejected theory is correct. Otherwise, refer to ring species.

My wife and I tried to have kids for 7 years. Spent tons of money. Never got pregnant. So no kids for me.It was a very painful experience. The article, not this article is misleading. The doctors always told us well in advance that any shots will produce multiple eggs and if we understood the risks. ALWAYS! This went on for 7 years so we weren't new to this. So it boggles my mind that these women had to agonize over something they should have already knew before hand. It should have never got to this point! They always do ultrasounds before the procedure to show the health and amount of eggs. The women can see it for themselves on the screen. Like I said, I went through this for 7 years.

I am still pretty bitter and upset with God over it. I feel that the power of money trumped my prayer to God. I know a few people who had just enough dough to have a child. I didn't. My prayer was worthless. 7 years of worthless.

Daron,

nope

true eitherway

Tony,
Nope.

Care to enlighten us as to why?

John,

>> "I am still pretty bitter and upset with God over it."

How old is your wife?

I think of all the things to blame God for, this one is pretty irrational...

If you and your wife were both healthy 25 years-olds, and she got pregnant tomorrow, the probability of the kid being born is still worse than a coin toss (e.g. < 50%)

I wish the Christian community would encourage adoption more -- for their female members over the age of 30.

I mean, just look at all of these kids without resources:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=T1fN1Yx-WQ0

There are so many mouths to feed in this world. The notion that someone would pump themselves full of drugs--merely for the purposes of having a child with their own genome (as opposed to adopting a needy one) is really odd to me.

"There are so many mouths to feed in this world. The notion that someone would pump themselves full of drugs--merely for the purposes of having a child with their own genome (as opposed to adopting a needy one) is really odd to me."

Once again, you go ToNy.


I am glad that you want to concentrate on a biological answer.
Why can't we kill Volker the Ovum?
Simple. Volker the Ovum never existed, so,no one was able to kill him or "it".
From a biological standpoint YOU become unicly YOU, at a certain point. That point is not a sperm or an egg.
So my question still remains.
Why can we kill ToNy the Fetus but not ToNy the baby, toddler ...? Where do YOU draw the line and why?
..that's all I ask. So you can choose to avoid an answer and start a nother discussion about the different opinions about the meaning of this word or that word or you could just give a straight answer. What will it be?
When your mother was three month pregnant with you, was that "you" or was it something else? What was it?

>> "YOU become unicly YOU, at a certain point. That point is not a sperm or an egg."

You're just re-stating your opinion.

You need to offer evidence as to why you think you have reason to believe that this is an objectively true statement that you made.

>> "Where do YOU draw the line and why?"

I don't think the line objectively exists. Rather, it is merely a subjective preference.

In the same way, I don't think the line between Canada and the USA objectively exists (i.e. is an unearthed property of the cosmos).

Things like Pi or the laws of logic may be taken to be objective truths. But lines we draw around atoms are not.

Note the images of the panda in my discussion with Josh Brahm here.

The firefighter, in virtue of signing up to be a firefighter has an obligation to go into risky situations to help others.

Similarly (not exactly, because mothers don't always become pregnant voluntarily - e.g. rape) mothers have an obligation to protect their children.

sorry- just realized that was kinda addressed already above. missed page 2 of comments.

Species give birth to different species as a matter of course?

This is pure sophistry.

Walk in to the average maternity ward, and tell me how many non-humans were born to human parents.

Using long term evolutionary change over the course of hundreds of thousands of years as a factor to be considered in a debate on abortion to prove the child may not even be human is stretching the argument beyond credulity.

The fact is, unless extraordinary proof is provided, there is next to no justification to believe that any pregnant woman is carrying a child of a different species, unless you are defining species so narrowly that blacks and whites are of different species. If so, which one is human?

All in an attempt to avoid answering the question: if you have identical triplets, why is one a child and the other two tissue masses and on what criteria do you make the assertion?

Trent,

>> "there is next to no justification to believe that any pregnant woman is carrying a child of a different species, unless you are defining species so narrowly that blacks and whites are of different species. If so, which one is human?"

As discussed with Josh Brahm, we may ask a similar question. Suppose that, ToNy tends to define species "narrowly", and Trent defines species "broadly."

Let us say, for example, that ToNy says that, to be considered human, the construct must only vary from the genome of Dr. Craig Venter by 1%.

And, let us suppose that Trent says that, actually, to be considered human, a construct is allowed to vary from the genome of Dr. Craig Venter by 6%.

Using science, how would you determine who is objectively correct?

Who among us is holding the correct tolerance percentage?

ToNy or Trent?

If you define broad as not requiring proof that my children are the same species, then yes. If you mean that not allowing for the claim that minorities are just subspecies of humanity, then yes.

It is still irrelevant to the issue of fetal reduction. Unless you are claiming that twins or triplets can be of different species.

I believe the argument that is used in terms of personhood of the fetus usually depends on developmental factors and not on genetic variation.

Brad,

"A" = a proposition, a truth statement.

OK good. "A" refers to any proposition at all. Is that right?

What about "non A" does that also refer to "any proposition at all"? Or, are there some limitation(s) you have in mind when you say "non A"?

RonH

Trent,

>> "It is still irrelevant to the issue of fetal reduction."

The abortion issue comes down to one question:

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

If you favor a geno-centric approach to this problem, then you must provide two things:

1. A benchmark (like the genome of Craig Venter)
2. And, a tolerance value (like 6%)

The point being, any rule set that you would bother to scribe, is necessarily subjective.

Hence, if you do not provide me with a reason to believe that Trent is in possession of the true definition of human, then i can only conclude that he is merely giving his opinion on the matter--as is everyone else in the debate.

So you are of the opinion that people of Asian or African descent may not be humans because their genome may differ from Dr Venter?

After all you are asserting that the claim that they are human is merely a matter of opinion.

Trent,

I have not taken a position about which constructs in the cosmos are human.

However, YOU (and the prolife community) indeed have.

Hence, I'm merely asking you to tell me how you have come to that conclusion.

I am not advocating death based on insufficiency of proof that you are really human. My stated position is that if there is any doubt to take the position that preserves life.

Your position is the one that is a justification for dehumanizing, while mine does not rob you of your humanity because you happen to black ( I am of course assuming Dr Venter is white)

My position is that if you have an organism that would be considered human under normal circumstances , the burden of proof is for you to prove that are not human. It is completely unconscionable to expect anyone to have to prove the definition of humanity is broad enough to include themselves.

I am assuming that you are smart enough to understand where that leads.

When watching one of TonY's similar performances I once asked him what he hoped to accomplish. He said he liked winning philosophical debates. I wondered how he could possibly delude himself into thinking what he was doing was winning. I still don't know, but I get closer to an understanding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg

Daron,

Ya but unlike Charlie Sheen, I really do win.

Trent,

>> "My stated position is that if there is any doubt to take the position that preserves life."

Well your position is that you believe that a construct of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen called the zygote is of the set of humans.

I'm just asking why you believe that this particular material configuration is worthy of your value, whilst other material configurations are not.

He's not winning a philosophical debate.

He is taking the argument away from a practical discussion about fetal reduction and trying to construct a framework to allow the unscrupulous to justify genocide as herd culling and banning interracial relationships as bestiality. We have had too much degrading people because they were not genetically pure enough.

ToNy,
Nope.

Here's where last saw ToNy "winning".
One defeat after the other, but as long he can stay on his feet he thinks he's got something.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/12/do-animals-have-souls-video/comments/page/2/#comments

Daron,

dang thats a long thread.

i dont remember it, but i'm sure I won that one too.

Trent,

>> "He is taking the argument away from a practical discussion about fetal reduction and trying to construct a framework to allow the unscrupulous to justify genocide"

er...

i actually haven't taken a position about which constructs are human.

I'm just asking you about your position.

If you feel inclined to answer my question, i'll look forward to reading it.

Since you use the word "too", yes, you did. In the same manner and with the same results.

It's too bad your memory is so porous. I guess that's why you go through the same charade so often and how you can convince yourself that you are doing so well with the precious seconds alloted you.

Daron,

my my how un-jesusy of you.

but if you think you won, then you should post your winning argument here to help out Trent and Jesse.

I did. Copy and paste you your heart's delight.
You can follow ToNy's antics right to the end.

Actually, you are pushing the idea that the definition of human is not an actual scientifically defined definition and pushing the position that it may be a genetic purity argument based on similarity to Dr Venter and what constitutes similar enough is merely a matter of opinion.

Tell me how this argument is not inherently racist. I say, the burden of proof is on you to define what criterion you use to deny humanity and you are backpedaling because you do not like where the line of thought leads.

Daron,

I followed it to the last page, but it just ends with a post by you--4 days after the thread dropped off the front page.

And your post merely contains a broken link...

Not much of a retort for me to work with...

: )

Now, this is the second time i've told you about that. You need to use the A tag on this blog because typepad cuts off long links.

Daron & ToNy - Can you hold back on the ad hominem's and keep the discussion on target with Amy's post?

Thanks!

Amen.

Ahh, I see the problem, now, ToNy. Actually, I alluded to it in that thread. When you say you "followed" the rest of us hope that you would "read". If you do it again give it a read, won't you?

Trent,

Well your position is that you believe that a construct of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen called the zygote is of the set of humans.

I'm just asking why you believe that this particular material configuration is worthy of your value, whilst other material configurations are not.

And the idea of genetic purity still isn't an issue when dealing with the topic at hand, which is fetal reduction.

I will make the assumption that you have nothing to say about the topic at hand, and are trying to redirect the discussion to some other agenda.

Daron,

I read and answered every response of course.

Though, i can't respond to your last response, because first, I didn't see it, and, second, the link is broken anyway.

A cool idea would be to post any argument you don't think I responded to here.

Trent,

>> "I will make the assumption that you have nothing to say about the topic at hand"

The topic at hand is:

"which constructs in the cosmos are of the set of humans."

answering this question is the key to the abortion issue.

You might enjoy this download by Greg Koukl on this issue.

Again my position is to err on the side of life. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why humanity should be denied to anyone.

No one should have to furnish proof that they should be considered human.

Too many people have died because they didn't meet someone's definition of human. I am a bit disgusted that someone here is trying to make a philosophical argument that that was OK because their humanity was just a matterof opinion and the burden of proof was on them to prove their worth.

My position is human unless proven otherwise, not a particular organization of matter that could be human depending on what your preferences are at the time. That can be a pretty good justification of genocide.

ToNy,

A cool idea would be to post any argument you don't think I responded to here.
Writing nonsense after every comment is not "responding".

Since we want to be on topic here, your series of questions is already clearly answered by the OP and by Trent's patient work - just as they were in the thread I linked to.

As you say:

The topic at hand is:

"which constructs in the cosmos are of the set of humans."

answering this question is the key to the abortion issue.


This is already answered. The baby's twin is a human baby and so the baby is a human baby. They are both the offspring of human parents and so they are both human.
But desperate pro-abortionists will say anything about the human baby they can in order to diminish its humanness in order to rationalize killing her. They will pretend they can't know if she is human. Or that they can't tell yet if she is a person. They'll make up vain questions about genomes, species and neandertals to try to obfuscate.

Very few (but some) will tell the truth and admit that they know they are killing a human baby and that they have decided for various reasons that this is justified.

Daron,

You're merely stating a rule that you have elected to believe.

That rule being:

"If the parent is human, then the child is human."

First, as even Trent admitted, if evolution is true, then this rule is not always true.

Second, you have not provided a reason as to why you have adopted this rule.

Why can't I just say:

"If the parent has a large vocabulary, then the child is human."

Anyone can just throw out a rule.

The question, however, is where did your rule come from?

The comments to this entry are closed.