Abortion///cont.

[quip]

Is it not apparent?
If we can agree that human life is intrinsically valuable, and worth protecting, and that a parent is morally obligated to protect the life of their child, then the pro-life stance is not too far past the horizon, from your point of view.

Being a parent is what's intentionally being precluded here regarding abortion.

The remainder simply is not relevant to the condition of pregnancy/choice to abort.

 

[glassjester]

Being a parent is what's intentionally being precluded here regarding abortion.

The fetal child has no parent?

 

[quip]

The fetal child has no parent?

The unwanted one, yes.

 

[Town Heretic]

A cell is not person. An acorn is not a tree.

On the contrary...its logically relevent to the rational discourse of the debate.

It's not germane to my argument and I can't see how it serves any. To suggest that development is determinative is as arbitrary as any other standard/litmus that cannot inherently mark anything but the particular bias in play. One man says origin and the remaining potential, which will unfold in one way or another until the end of life, is all that is needed. The next fellow believes in breath, or brain waves, or physical independence. All the group will ever agree on is that at some point life is vested with right which is (absent qualifications given) inviolate.

 

[quip]

It's not germane to my argument and I can't see how it serves any. To suggest that development is determinative is as arbitrary as any other standard/litmus that cannot inherently mark anything but the particular bias in play. One man says origin and the remaining potential, which will unfold in one way or another until the end of life, is all that is needed. The next fellow believes in breath, or brain waves, or physical independence. All the group will ever agree on is that at some point life is vested with right which is (absent qualifications given) inviolate.

Pro-choice inconsistencies notwithstanding, what remains constant is that a newly germinating acorn is nary confused to that of an oak tree...most notably by the very strident of pro-lifer.

Something other than reason and logic must be at play...yes?

 

[Town Heretic]

Pro-choice inconsistencies notwithstanding,

To be clear though, I wasn't aiming that qualification at one side more than the other. Neither can produce a litmus that doesn't reduce to an article of faith, however couched.

And yet for all their differences there is an agreement on underlying principle, from which a logical argument can arise and has.

what remains constant is that a newly germinating acorn is nary confused to that of an oak tree.

But then, distinguishing an acorn from a tree isn't really the same thing as distinguishing value outside of function and who would argue that right follows that?

Something other than reason and logic must be at play...yes?

I suppose it varies by claim. What I mean is that the foundation for any claim is other than reason, but within the context of a claim the parts can be examined for the process or inconsistency.

 

[quip]

But then, distinguishing an acorn from a tree isn't really the same thing as distinguishing value outside of function and who would argue that right follows that?

On the contrary. The analogy is of immanent importance whilst distingushing the value of the fetus against the women's fuctional role within this scenario. Which, not surprisingly, you've explicitly omitted.

Moreover, such valuation rings deceptively subjective though we both know any such distinguishment is a one-off occurance...more of a preconfigured, special-interest determination than any show of accessible valuation. All the more reason to introduce form and function (lack thereof) into the discussion.

 

[glassjester]

The unwanted one, yes.

That does not make sense. The willingness of the parents to be parents does not determine whether they are parents.

Would the same hold true of a newborn? If a mother and father decide they do not wish to be parents of a newborn, are they no longer the parents of that newborn?

 

[Danoh]

That does not make sense. The willingness of the parents to be parents does not determine whether they are parents.

Would the same hold true of a newborn? If a mother and father decide they do not wish to be parents of a newborn, are they no longer the parents of that newborn?

The word "parent" is a verb made a nominative for convenience- which is then viewed as a noun by those linguistically ignorant of such things.

Like wise with the words mother and father.

 

[glassjester]

The word "parent" is a verb made a nominative for convenience- which is then viewed as a noun by those linguistically ignorant of such things.

Like wise with the words mother and father.

You know very well that the word "parent" is as legitimately a noun as it is a verb.

It is an objective, biological fact that I have two parents. It is not just a convenient thing to say.

 

[Town Heretic]

I wrote: distinguishing an acorn from a tree isn't really the same thing as distinguishing value outside of function and who would argue that right follows that?

On the contrary. The analogy is of immanent importance whilst distingushing the value of the fetus against the women's fuctional role within this scenario. Which, not surprisingly, you've explicitly omitted.

Because it assumes a right that is itself the question and one which rests on something other than the desire or inconvenience of the woman, just as slavery could not be reasonably decided by the imposition on or rights of the slave owner.

In any event you haven't linked the value of the acorn to the tree analogy, only stated it exists. How so?

Moreover, such valuation rings deceptively subjective though we both know any such distinguishment is a one-off occurance...more of a preconfigured, special-interest determination than any show of accessible valuation.

I don't take your meaning. Every litmus is inherently subjective. Any. Each. And, again, all that the differing parties agree on is that the right exists at some point along a chronological line and that where it does we cannot abridge it.

All the more reason to introduce form and function (lack thereof) into the discussion.

Except that it can't be or you're ultimately arguing for the grotesque, where right is a Darwinian reflection of value to the social order. That never works out well for anyone in the end. In our compact we advance a different notion. The enfeebled stand equal to captains of industry before the law and in their rights.

 

[ok doser]

I've no moral requirement to give you my blood even as doing so incurs your death.

Yes, I agree.

i would disagree

if you were aware that another person would die without that which you could easily give, I would argue that you are indeed morally obligated to act to save that persons life

Genesis 4:9




there's an interesting court case ongoing in canada in which a good samaritan who had stopped to assist a disabled vehicle died after being struck by a passing car. After the good samaritan was struck, the driver of the car who hit him drove off, as did the driver of the disabled vehicle.

they've convicted the hit and run driver, now they pressing charges against the driver who left the good samaritan to die, based on the assumption that if that driver had reported the accident, emergency services could have responded in time to save the GS's life


and quip?

not a thing in there about controlling sexuality

 

[ok doser]

What a lot of effort trying to convince, quip, of the sanctity of human life.

As a Buddhist, she sits under her little avatar tree, considering the scared, strange Christians circling around to get her bite, please just a little nibble, on simple truth.

There's got to be someone who can get through to her.

Yes, it's God, and she refuses to listen to Him.

I prayed for, quip, today.

I will tomorrow, too, and the next day and the next.

quips' a chick? :think:

Your god created a universe of suffering where at least in the manner of early term abortions the fetus sufficiently evades

by that logic quip, i would be doing you a favor to kill you now, before you suffer any more


in fact, i'd be doing all of us a favor

So what if they chose to be parents? Why does that make the life of their child worth preserving?

if they chose to stop being parents, it would appear that they would have the moral duty to kill their child :idunno:

If we can agree that human life is intrinsically valuable...

i can't even get her to agree that human life begins at conception

 

[ok doser]

The fetal child has no parent?

The unwanted one, yes.

:doh:
i believe quip just jumped the shark

... a newly germinating acorn is nary confused to that of an oak tree...

in the same manner, no one would confuse these two:

If a mother and father decide they do not wish to be parents of a newborn, are they no longer the parents of that newborn?

that's where quip's "logic" leads

All the more reason to introduce form and function (lack thereof) into the discussion.

so let's kill the deformed and handicapped?

 

[Lon]

Clues: The distinction's generally 9 months in duration, easy to discern with the eye and highly relevant to the issue of abortion.

Considering, the best seen is an ultrasound in most cases.... :nono: John Merrick didn't 'look' human. :nono:

Your own values are particularly random, artificial, and irrelevant even to you, if you could discern it.

I'd suspect your thinking goes deeper than what it 'looks' like, but that is the first thing you ever say every time. It is among your first sentiments always expressed in all these threads..

 

[ok doser]

Clues: The distinction's generally 9 months in duration

so was my last contract job

easy to discern with the eye

so, blind people can kill children of any age?

and highly relevant to the issue of abortion.

well, let's start with basics

would you agree with the following statement?

at conception, a new, genetically unique human life is created

 

[ok doser]

I'd suspect your thinking goes deeper than what it 'looks' like...

i don't have any idea what the children starving in our inner cities look like, so i guess it's ok that they die :idunno:

 

[Lon]

i can't even get her to agree that human life begins at conception

What???? Quip is a girl!???

 

[ok doser]

eagles wings seems to think so

 

[quip]

I wrote: distinguishing an acorn from a tree isn't really the same thing as distinguishing value outside of function and who would argue that right follows that?

Because it assumes a right that is itself the question and one which rests on something other than the desire or inconvenience of the woman,

Both begin by assuming a right, rights for the woman are established by rational appraisal. Something your position lacks/avoids...by way of necessity.

just as slavery could not be reasonably decided by the imposition on or rights of the slave owner.

There was no bodily impositions pressed upon the slave owner...a specious comparison at best.

In any event you haven't linked the value of the acorn to the tree analogy, only stated it exists. How so?

It's logic and subsequent value is inferred...supra.