Abortion///cont.

[quip]

Yes it is. Was I somehow less human when I was an embryo? It seems the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the same entity was somehow less human at another point during its continuous development.

Yet, the values you displaced earlier on being human..you now conflate. You're entirely inconsistent.

 

[quip]

No, Quip. It is you who wants to have his cake and eat it, too. You claim some allegiance to "cold logic," but readily abandon it the minute your subjective "intuition" moves you in the opposite direction.

I'm not abandoning a thing...the logic is implied by the universal instinct.

 

[glassjester]

I'm not abandoning a thing...the logic is implied by the universal instinct.

Instincts aren't arguments.

 

[quip]

Instincts aren't arguments.

Yep.
Though when applied within one....they can be quite interesting.

 

[glassjester]

Yep.
Though when applied within one....they can be quite interesting.

Certainly. Now all you have to do to bridge the gap is demonstrate that our laws must be based on instincts.

 

[quip]

Certainly. Now all you have to do to bridge the gap is demonstrate that our laws must be based on instincts.

Well, the instinct hypothetical showed that there's a distinct practical value distinction between pre-born and post-born humans. Now, simply and rationally apply those (and other such argumentation) to the laws previously against abortion.

Not too difficult a task I'm assuming.

 

[glassjester]

Well, the instinct hypothetical showed that there's a distinct practical value distinction between pre-born and post-born humans.

What is the practical distinction?

 

[ok doser]

Well, the instinct hypothetical showed that there's a distinct practical value distinction between pre-born and post-born humans.

not really

a better hypothetical would be having to chose between a mother holding an infant and a very pregnant woman

 

[Town Heretic]

I suppose I can claim the same thing though, on the positive end where over-compensation against the negative end becomes an irrational pursuit against its own rational distinction to understand and accept.

Except I didn't make that claim. Or, I think you've invented a function that isn't necessarily present, the notion of one driving the other. And reason is the best check on any impulse.

The only problem in donning that hat is that it clashes with the formal wear. Which will you wear to the party?

As usual, whichever makes the most sense.

How else are we to apply our moral instinct if not by way of reasoning? TH conveniently wants them distinct from one another.

Rather, I believe that impulse should be subject to rational scrutiny and not the other way around. It's the clearest way to distinguish between inclination rooted in bias and something better. If you did that you'd be less inclined to make goofy, groundless but likely heart felt accusations like:

I agree that he's being duplicitous on the issue...conveniently so.

Because there's not a demonstrable shred of deceit in my approach or argument.

 

[quip]

What is the practical distinction?

Practicality's implied by comparision. Saving the embryos would not only be an immoral act..it would be impracticable to even consider frangible, inchoate life over that of a hearty infant.

 

[glassjester]

Practicality's implied by comparision. Saving the embryos would not only be an immoral act..it would be impracticable to even consider frangible, inchoate life over that of a hearty infant.

A hearty infant? You seem to be proposing that the value of human life is not intrinsic, but derived from the individual's usefulness (or potential usefulness) to others.

Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[quip]

A hearty infant? You seem to be proposing that the value of human life is not intrinsic, but derived from the individual's usefulness (or potential usefulness) to others.

Am I understanding you correctly?

No.

 

[glassjester]

No.

Then I still don't understand the "practical" value of the infant over the fetus.

 

[quip]

Then I still don't understand the "practical" value of the infant over the fetus.

Then take an intropective view of why you'd choose the infant over the embryos.

 

[glassjester]

Then take an intropective view of why you'd choose the infant over the embryos.

...I never said I would.

 

[quip]

...I never said I would.

Ok

 

[glassjester]

Ok

Well?

How is an infant more "practically" valuable than an embryo?

 

[quip]

Well?

How is an infant more "practically" valuable than an embryo?

I give...how?

 

[glassjester]

I give...how?

It wasn't rhetorical. You did say the infant is more valuable than the embryo. I am really asking: how?

 

[quip]

It wasn't rhetorical. You did say the infant is more valuable than the embryo. I am really asking: how?

Nope. I said it was more practical to choose the infant over the fragile embryos.
Why would you choose one over the other?