|
On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking.
How does this hinder the argument?
Think of it like your math homework in school. It's not enough to have a problem and an answer, you need to show your work.
If you can't demonstrate what process you use to determine that X=Y, then people are forced to accept your conclusion or not. It removes the ability to debate the process if your process has zero transparency. Using a catch-all term to describe something is deliberate obfuscation.
It's a blanket statement that skips the process and dictates the conclusion, without demonstrating the basis for doing so.
If you believe abortion should be illegal for religious reasons, sorry, I'm going to point to freedom of religion, which is also freedom from religion. You're free to carry to term any and all times you personally get impregnated. I won't judge you. But you're not free to force your religion on me, especially if you can't justify a reason outside of your religion.
|
United States41979 Posts
Again, this is literally the ontological argument. I have no idea how this is so difficult to understand. You cannot define a word as your conclusion and then use the word in place of actually arguing that conclusion unless that definition is unequivocally agreed upon by all parties in the debate. If we all agree that a square has four sides and then we got into an argument about how many sides a square has then I would be within my rights to say "it has four sides because it's a square". However if we disagree about whether or not a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are the same thing and we disagree about whether the word baby refers to both or just one then you are not able to go "they are the same thing, they are both babies". You have to demonstrate why they are alike.
|
On November 16 2012 06:23 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. How does this hinder the argument? Think of it like your math homework in school. It's not enough to have a problem and an answer, you need to show your work. If you can't demonstrate what process you use to determine that X=Y, then people are forced to accept your conclusion or not. It removes the ability to debate the process if your process has zero transparency. Using a catch-all term to describe something is deliberate obfuscation. It's a blanket statement that skips the process and dictates the conclusion, without demonstrating the basis for doing so. If you believe abortion should be illegal for religious reasons, sorry, I'm going to point to freedom of religion, which is also freedom from religion. You're free to carry to term any and all times you personally get impregnated. I won't judge you. But you're not free to force your religion on me, especially if you can't justify a reason outside of your religion.
So then why isn't there an implicit burden of proof on pro-choice people to first show that there is some moral distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby? We are only placing this burden on one side and implicitly accepting the premise of the other.
|
Again, this is literally the ontological argument. I have no idea how this is so difficult to understand. You cannot define a word as your conclusion and then use the word in place of actually arguing that conclusion unless that definition is unequivocally agreed upon by all parties in the debate. If we all agree that a square has four sides and then we got into an argument about how many sides a square has then I would be within my rights to say "it has four sides because it's a square". However if we disagree about whether or not a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are the same thing and we disagree about whether the word baby refers to both or just one then you are not able to go "they are the same thing, they are both babies". You have to demonstrate why they are alike.
I have no idea why it is so difficult to understand that that is not what people are doing.
You can keep bullshitting about ontology all you want, it's just more strawmen from the master.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people. No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him. So what you're saying is we are forced to first accept the premises of one side and then argue against them, instead of starting with premises of our own?
No, you are more than welcome to think a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are morally indistinguishable. You don't have to think that either has less moral value than the other. What you do have to accept is that it is a way of categorising what you are talking about. I'm not saying you must value one more than the other or view one as having a soul and the other as not or any other part of the abortion debate, I'm saying you must categorise one as still in the womb and one as not in the womb for the purpose of meaningful communication. Even the most fervent pro-lifer will accept that infants typically do spend time in the womb.
|
|
|
On November 16 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people. No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him. So what you're saying is we are forced to first accept the premises of one side and then argue against them, instead of starting with premises of our own? No, you are more than welcome to think a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are morally indistinguishable. You don't have to think that either has less moral value than the other. What you do have to accept is that it is a way of categorising what you are talking about. I'm not saying you must value one more than the other or view one as having a soul and the other as not or any other part of the abortion debate, I'm saying you must categorise one as still in the womb and one as not in the womb for the purpose of meaningful communication. Even the most fervent pro-lifer will accept that infants typically do spend time in the womb.
The argument is that no distinction should be made and you are mandating a distinction be made. I don't know how you don't see this.
|
the irony of this whole debate is one of the biggest proponents of abortion (the ACLU) would absolutely abhor what kwark is doing.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:23 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. How does this hinder the argument? Think of it like your math homework in school. It's not enough to have a problem and an answer, you need to show your work. If you can't demonstrate what process you use to determine that X=Y, then people are forced to accept your conclusion or not. It removes the ability to debate the process if your process has zero transparency. Using a catch-all term to describe something is deliberate obfuscation. It's a blanket statement that skips the process and dictates the conclusion, without demonstrating the basis for doing so. If you believe abortion should be illegal for religious reasons, sorry, I'm going to point to freedom of religion, which is also freedom from religion. You're free to carry to term any and all times you personally get impregnated. I won't judge you. But you're not free to force your religion on me, especially if you can't justify a reason outside of your religion. So then why isn't there an implicit burden of proof on pro-choice people to first show that there is some moral distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby? We are only placing this burden on one side and implicitly accepting the premise of the other.
The words in the womb and in the cradle are neutral categories which both sides can agree are ways of geographically describing the baby (to use your term) in question. Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value and therefore has no bearing on the argument of the pro-life side. However categorising a prebirth baby as the same thing as a postbirth baby does implicitly change it's value to the pro-choice side (who aren't in favour of infanticide) and is therefore a poor definition as it is not accepted by one side.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people. No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him. So what you're saying is we are forced to first accept the premises of one side and then argue against them, instead of starting with premises of our own? No, you are more than welcome to think a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are morally indistinguishable. You don't have to think that either has less moral value than the other. What you do have to accept is that it is a way of categorising what you are talking about. I'm not saying you must value one more than the other or view one as having a soul and the other as not or any other part of the abortion debate, I'm saying you must categorise one as still in the womb and one as not in the womb for the purpose of meaningful communication. Even the most fervent pro-lifer will accept that infants typically do spend time in the womb. The argument is that no distinction should be made and you are mandating a distinction be made. I don't know how you don't see this.
The categorising being used here is one of geography and is unequivocally a correct one. Babies do spend time in the womb. All of them. Always. It has no bearing on whether or not they are morally equivalent.
|
On November 16 2012 06:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:23 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. How does this hinder the argument? Think of it like your math homework in school. It's not enough to have a problem and an answer, you need to show your work. If you can't demonstrate what process you use to determine that X=Y, then people are forced to accept your conclusion or not. It removes the ability to debate the process if your process has zero transparency. Using a catch-all term to describe something is deliberate obfuscation. It's a blanket statement that skips the process and dictates the conclusion, without demonstrating the basis for doing so. If you believe abortion should be illegal for religious reasons, sorry, I'm going to point to freedom of religion, which is also freedom from religion. You're free to carry to term any and all times you personally get impregnated. I won't judge you. But you're not free to force your religion on me, especially if you can't justify a reason outside of your religion. So then why isn't there an implicit burden of proof on pro-choice people to first show that there is some moral distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby? We are only placing this burden on one side and implicitly accepting the premise of the other.
No, we're implicitly accepting the premise that if you try to create a foregone conclusion with your terminology, you aren't actually debating anymore.
There can be no validity in debate if you create a foregone conclusion. "Fetus" isn't a foregone conclusion. Yes, it's politically charged, but you can easily say "I believe that once a fetus has developed to the point it could reasonably be expected to survive independent of the mother with modern medical care, abortion should be illegal". Hell, I'm pro-choice and believe that, when the mother's life isn't endangered.
It's not hard from there to say that "I believe a fetus should be protected under the law as an individual human because of X, Y, and Z. Sources"
Presto, you're not caving on your actual position, you're just not suggesting that a fetus at one month is chilling inside momma with a diaper, a bottle, and a rattle, in a little playpen in the womb.
|
Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value
LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here...
|
Lalalaland34483 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people. No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him. So what you're saying is we are forced to first accept the premises of one side and then argue against them, instead of starting with premises of our own? No, you are more than welcome to think a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are morally indistinguishable. You don't have to think that either has less moral value than the other. What you do have to accept is that it is a way of categorising what you are talking about. I'm not saying you must value one more than the other or view one as having a soul and the other as not or any other part of the abortion debate, I'm saying you must categorise one as still in the womb and one as not in the womb for the purpose of meaningful communication. Even the most fervent pro-lifer will accept that infants typically do spend time in the womb. The argument is that no distinction should be made and you are mandating a distinction be made. I don't know how you don't see this.
There are two arguments here. Whether the 'human being' pre birth and post birth should be distinguished from each other from a moral perspective, and whether they should be distinguished from each other from a language perspective.
To facilitate the moral perspective discussion, the language argument should be finalised as 'use terms which are least ambiguous'. Not hard to follow. The moral discussion is another one entirely, one that is generally avoided on TL for other reasons.
|
On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here...
Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context.
|
On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context.
context is apparently irrelevant if words can be considered vague on their own. lol
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here...
I'm not actually having an abortion debate here, I'm trying to explain why the ontological argument is always objectively meaningless and why it applies to this situation. And if a pro-choice guy defined "in womb" as "automatically less valuable than out of womb" then they would be making the exact same logical error that you are making. They do not however, the common definition of "in womb" that I am hoping we can agree upon here is "inside a womb".
|
On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context.
I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography.
|
On November 16 2012 06:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. context is apparently irrelevant if words can be considered vague on their own. lol
Oh, but according to you, context is 100% relevant, and only an idiot wouldn't understand things in context. In fact, I think I'm putting it more politely than you did.
Also, you're misrepresenting things, because it's ONLY in that context where the terminology is being deliberately obfuscated that it's considered vague.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography.
Is it the pro-life stance that babies don't spend time in wombs? If it is not then you accept the category but still believe that they are morally indistinguishable. That is the argument that I am inviting you to make, why you feel they are morally indistinguishable. Denying reference to the womb is madness.
The entire argument is not about geography. Pro life and pro choice people both agree about whether babies can be found pre birth. There is literally no disagreement there. The disagreement is in the worth of the baby pre birth and the value of the freedom of the mother. The geographic categorising is not in any way loaded towards one or the other.
|
On November 16 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography.
No, he said that categorization by geography doesn't implicitly affect the value. Which is true. You have to explicitly state why you find geography to be relevant or irrelevant.
Pro-choice or pro-life, both can say "that woman is pregnant". That's referring to geography, but not stating whether they think it's ok to terminate the pregnancy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
