Prager University on Abortion.

[Sea of red]

She didn't at all because your comparison is off. Brain death implies a loss of higher brain functions while the developing fetus does not have these higher functions yet. You need to establish that it is ok to kill somebody, based upon their stage of development and why should your line be drawn at X and not Y or Z. Besides, if we following your logic to it's conclusion, protections should be extended in the womb and abortion should be banned after the 25th week. Are you now going to press for laws to limit abortion to a specific time frame or not?

I think they should be on basis of EEG readings being too definite at that point.

[Sea of red]

Your logic is a little off due to the fact that pro lifers do not necessarily assign the same value to other animals; as they do to humans (although some do).

I wonder why that is.

[Joel]

This whole argument is based on an entertaining of a known scientific impossibility to prove a point, so this was dead in the water.

I think you are wrong to dismiss my argument like that.

1) It isn't a logical impossibility. And I think that's what matters for a logical argument. It doesn't matter for that chain of reasoning that my contrary-to-fact conditional is not actually the case or not physically real. That's logically irrelevant.
2) It can be a valid logical tool to conceive of practicably impossible constructions as a means of abstraction and thus discovering distinctions and even actual cause and effect. It is illogical for you to dismiss it. In this case the abstraction allows us to identify what are the necessary conditions of our considering it death. Even you in a post to someone else said that it's the permanence that makes it death.
3) It is clearly scientifically possible, in the sense that we observe at least one example of the kind of thing I described: the human fetus.


(As a side discussion: Is it even a scientific impossibility? How has that been proven? Proven that future technology to enable such a thing in the future is physically impossible? Possible future resuscitation technology? Possible future suspended-animation technology? Are you so certain? (Let alone the impossibility of proving any impossibility in empirical science, other than logical impossibilities. Empirical sciences can never provide that level of certainty.))

[Sea of red]

1) It isn't a logical impossibility. And I think that's what matters for a logical argument. It doesn't matter for that chain of reasoning that my contrary-to-fact conditional is not actually the case or not physically real. That's logically irrelevant.
2) It can be a valid logical tool to conceive of practicably impossible constructions as a means of abstraction and thus discovering distinctions and even actual cause and effect. It is illogical for you to dismiss it. In this case the abstraction allows us to identify what are the necessary conditions of our considering it death. Even you in a post to someone else said that it's the permanence that makes it death.

Can you quote it so I can clarify it?

(As a side discussion: Is it even a scientific impossibility? How has that been proven? Proven that future technology to enable such a thing in the future is physically impossible? Possible future resuscitation technology? Possible future suspended-animation technology? Are you so certain? (Let alone the impossibility of proving any impossibility in empirical science, other than logical impossibilities. Empirical sciences can never provide that level of certainty.))

A lot of this is outside my field of expertise and so I won't touch it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Pretty accurate - though not entirely.

The comparison is fine because regardless of whether an embryo can develop into high brain functions, they have not yet reached that stage in development yet, and so I don't call that a person yet. I was asked to clarify where I defined life and I gave an answer. You don't have to agree with obviously, but I gave an answer to the question. Now, if you define life with the some other criteria then that's your position. But I was asked when I thought life begins, and so there it is.

The issue is here again that you are trying to draw a line at development and saying that the line that should be ok to kill at is here. This really doesn't work as a comparison between brain death and the unborn because they are two different things. Brain death is usually defined as the destruction of higher brain functions and none of that functionality will ever return. Once you are brain dead, that is pretty much it. The fetus is at a stage in development in which higher brain functions are on their way, but are not there yet. It is yet another stage in the development we call life and I can't say that life begins at when your higher brain functions start to come online because technically, 3 year olds lack higher brain functions compared to adults. Here is the question... at what stage of development is the higher brain functions 'good enough' where the life of the individual is no longer consider disposable? If it is within the womb, would you be for bans on abortion after that point?

[lilpixieofterror]

I wonder why that is.

Some religious some not. Pro lifers are not defined by a single religion or single philosophy.

[Sea of red]

To be fair, he was trying to answer six people at once. I think he lost track of who argued what. I honestly have I trouble with more than three so I am inclined to give him some Ieeway here.

Yeah, I can get lost, but I just deal with it and do my best.

So I've had you, QF, Rumtum, lilpixie, OBP, Rogue, Jesse, Joel, Sparko, Mossrose, and DE, so that's about eleven people and counting.

[Sea of red]

The issue is here again that you are trying to draw a line at development and saying that the line that should be ok to kill at is here. This really doesn't work as a comparison between brain death and the unborn because they are two different things. Brain death is usually defined as the destruction of higher brain functions and none of that functionality will ever return. Once you are brain dead, that is pretty much it. The fetus is at a stage in development in which higher brain functions are on their way, but are not there yet. It is yet another stage in the development we call life and I can't say that life begins at when your higher brain functions start to come online because technically, 3 year olds lack higher brain functions compared to adults. Here is the question... at what stage of development is the higher brain functions 'good enough' where the life of the individual is no longer consider disposable? If it is within the womb, would you be for bans on abortion after that point?

You're missing my point about brain death. I'm not sure if I want to go if it another shot, so I hold on to my time and effort for now.

Anyways, in regards to your last question (which I've answered):

I think they should be on basis of EEG readings being too definite at that point.

Meaning, I think week twenty five is a good banning stage for abortion - unless complications occur.

[Sea of red]

Some religious some not. Pro lifers are not defined by a single religion or single philosophy.

Nor are pro-choice advocates.

BTW: why do you feel it's acceptable to kill animals? Yeah, we've been down this road, but I'd like an answer on this, since the last time we got into a flame-war.

[Jesse]

Yeah, I can get lost, but I just deal with it and do my best.

So I've had you, QF, Rumtum, lilpixie, OBP, Rogue, Jesse, Joel, Sparko, Mossrose, and DE, so that's about eleven people and counting.

It's pretty easy to get lost with so many people to respond to at once.

[Teallaura]

I don't have time to break up that entire post. You made a huge mistake, SoR. I did not use nor continue the Nazi analogy. My argument is strictly from the political and judicial, which tie to the social and moral, albeit indirectly. I didn't call you anything at all.

What you called 'grasping' is political reasoning at its most basic. There is nothing irrational or desperate in my argument. You are so preoccupied with the Nazi part that you see it where it is not.

Once again paraphrasing Franklin, I believe, the power to define in is also the power to define out. There is no intrinsic safeguard with such power. Roe in fact goes much further than Plessy, which recognized that blacks had equal rights, whereas Roe places conditions foreign to the law on whether and when a human being has rights at all.

Yes, Roe does explicitly recognize that the fetus is human.

Regardless of how you may feel about it or what you believe the fact is that there is no barrier other than political will to defining humanity in any of the ways I suggested or any other that political whim might suggest. Political winds change and it is foolish beyond measure to trust them to maintain one's values.

[lilpixieofterror]

You're missing my point about brain death. I'm not sure if I want to go if it another shot, so I hold on to my time and effort for now.

I got it just fine and I don't think it is a valid comparison because the word 'death' implies something was once there that was no longer there and a fetus can not properly be described as 'brain dead' because there wasn't higher brain functions to begin with. I also think you're wrong here because the pre 25 week stage is part of the process of human development that we all end up going though. Assigning values of life, based upon your stage in development, is simply arbitrary and really hard to back up because why should we assign it at the beginning of EEG readings and not somewhere else? I can assure you (based on experience) newborns don't do much of anything else beyond cry, eat, sleep, and poop. While you can see individual newborns do have their own little personality quarks, they mostly want to be fed, changed, burped, etc. You can't carry much of a conversation with your kids until they are about 2. EEG readings don't necessarily make you smart or even human.

Anyways, in regards to your last question (which I've answered):


Meaning, I think week twenty five is a good banning stage for abortion - unless complications occur.

Many of your fellow pro choicers, will not agree with you there at all.

[Sea of red]

I don't have time to break up that entire post. You made a huge mistake, SoR. I did not use nor continue the Nazi analogy. My argument is strictly from the political and judicial, which tie to the Social and moral, albeit indirectly. I didn't call you anything at all.

What you called 'grasping' is political reasoning at its most basic. There is nothing irrational or desperate in my argument. You are So preoccupied with the Nazi part that you see it where it is not.

Once again paraphrasing Franklin, I believe, the power to define in is also the power to define out. There is no intrinsic safeguard with such power. Roe in fact goes much further than Plessy, which recognized that black, had equal rights whereas Roe places conditions foreign to the law on whether and when a human being has rights at all.

Yes, Roe does explicitly recognize that the fetus is human.

Regardless of how you may feel about it or what you believe the fact is that there is no barrier other than political will to defining humanity in any of the ways I suggested or any other that political whim might suggest. Political winds change and it is foolish beyond measure to trust them to maintain one's values.

Well then, we don't need to argue further. You've got to understand that people compared me to Nazi's and you defended the analogy, so I'm obviously rubbed the wrong way.

One down.

[Teallaura]

Correction: it was Marshall. not Franklin.

[lilpixieofterror]

Nor are pro-choice advocates.

BTW: why do you feel it's acceptable to kill animals? Yeah, we've been down this road, but I'd like an answer on this, since the last time we got into a flame-war.

I don't assign the same value of life to animals, as I do to humans. Simple as that.