Are abortionists just lazy and irresponsible women?

[Felicity]

To Felicity: Just for your benefit, I am breaking up message #717 of this Thread.

:mrgreen: HEY...THANKS....that's just so thoughtful...and geez...it makes such a difference:joke:

Peralin wrote: "Do they realize that there is a chance that they are morally commiting a murder? I would think that the idea would come up when making a decision such as abortion. Is it worth the risk of murdering a child?"


Next, regarding murder: FALSE. Murder only applies when someone who has the power of choice is killed against their choice. Murder is impossible and non-applicable for an animal that has no power of choice. Do you call mosquito-swatting murder?

The human in the womb, by virtue of his nature which endows him with fundamental human rights, deserves an opportunity to choose. He did not choose to come into existence, but once he is, he deserves the respect due all members of the human species. The nature of a mosquito does not possess that which differentiates the human species from all others.

 

[Felicity]

I didn't respond to the first or the last in your "series" because, really, they are irrelevant.

 

[Felicity]

For those curious...:roll:

The "nature" thing to which both FI and I refer is expressed as follows: The reality of the being--the essence--the fundamental character--the inherent qualities of something that exists independently of the experience of that being. What something IS, rather than what it "could be," or "might be"....what it IS , WAS, and WILL BE....

The "nature" of a piece of paper includes the wood fiber from which it came and its purpose for which it will be used. The "nature" of a dog includes Dalmatians and Chihuahuas. The "nature" of human includes all possibilities of what it means to be human expressed in the capacity of the myriad events and conditions of human experience whether or not one actually achieves/experiences any of the realities of being human. I will never experience humanity as a man, but what it means to be human includes the male gender and my "humanity" is not diminished by my never being male. I don't remember being a zygote--but it is part of my and every other human's nature. It is the objective reality of the human species. At the moment of conception, one becomes what it means to be "human." The conceptus is an identifiable member of the human species--hence objectively human and deserving of "human rights."

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "Some of us believe there is objective morality rather than the trendy relative morality. Abortion is objectively immoral."


Your mere say-so does not make it true. On what BASIS can you say that?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "You insist that human rights is the slave to the function of the individual being. I do not. All humans have objective worth despite age/health/mental functioning."


Again, your mere say-so does not make it true. On what BASIS can you claim that humans have objective value?

 

[Felicity]

Felicity wrote: "You insist that human rights is the slave to the function of the individual being. I do not. All humans have objective worth despite age/health/mental functioning."


Again, your mere say-so does not make it true. On what BASIS can you claim that humans have objective value?

'splained it in post #737

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "A pregnancy is mindless natural biology in action. Do humans claim subservience to mindless biology, or do they claim superiority over mindless biology? If subservient, then why are medical procedures from immunizations to heart-bypass surgery tolerated? If superior, then why should ANY woman be required or even expected to carry a pregnancy to term?"

--and wrote: "Mind and body are not seperate--the human species posesses an integrated intelligence by virtue of the nature of the species. It is not a "development"--it is a fact of the being--human. This is that position you ignore on the explain your reasoning thread."


Again, your mere say-so does not make it true. Does a bacterium have a mind? It DOES have stimulus-response abilities; that is part of its nature. There is no evidence that baterial stimulus-reponse is any more "minded" than the stimulus-reponse of a computer is "minded". As you examine the evolutionary ladder, and see greater subtleties of stimulus and response, AT WHAT POINT can you say that "mind" has become part of the body? ANY such point means that mind and body ARE separate, see? Else even a bacterial body would have a mind, Q.E.D. And THEREFORE your so-called "integrated intelligence" DOES NOT EXIST. One more hole in your "human nature" philosophy.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "The human in the womb, by virtue of his nature which endows him with fundamental human rights, deserves an opportunity to choose."

WRONG. This is EXACTLY equivalent to saying "Potential must be fulfilled!"

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "The "nature" thing to which both FI and I refer is expressed as follows: The reality of the being--the essence--the fundamental character--the inherent qualities of something that exists independently of the experience of that being. What something IS, rather than what it "could be," or "might be"....what it IS , WAS, and WILL BE.... The "nature" of a piece of paper includes the wood fiber from which it came and its purpose for which it will be used. The "nature" of a dog includes Dalmatians and Chihuahuas. The "nature" of human includes all possibilities of what it means to be human expressed in the capacity of the myriad events and conditions of human experience whether or not one actually achieves/experiences any of the realities of being human. I will never experience humanity as a man, but what it means to be human includes the male gender and my "humanity" is not diminished by my never being male. I don't remember being a zygote--but it is part of my and every other human's nature. It is the objective reality of the human species. At the moment of conception, one becomes what it means to be "human." The conceptus is an identifiable member of the human species--hence objectively human and deserving of "human rights.""


And now, of course, in dissecting the preceding, I will probably be writing a long post which Felicity will claim is objectionable on that account alone. Well, perhaps I can tackle just one part of it here. How about this incomplete sentence:
"The reality of the being--the essence--the fundamental character--the inherent qualities of something that exists independently of the experience of that being."

Not being a complete sentence, it doesn't make much sense. ESPECIALLY because of "qualities of something that exists independently" --NO SUCH THING. A piece of paper is mentioned in text not requoted here; it has a quality of roughness or smoothness, depending on the way it was made. In NO WAY does that quality exist independently of the paper. "Roughness" or "smoothness' are DESCRIPTIONS, which may apply to many things other than paper. WHEY they so apply, those qualities are existing WITH those other things, not independently of them. Every single time!

How can a philosophy based on such an obvious error be correct? Felicity says so, of course!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "The "nature" thing to which both FI and I refer is expressed as follows: The reality of the being--the essence--the fundamental character--the inherent qualities of something that exists independently of the experience of that being. What something IS, rather than what it "could be," or "might be"....what it IS , WAS, and WILL BE.... The "nature" of a piece of paper includes the wood fiber from which it came and its purpose for which it will be used. The "nature" of a dog includes Dalmatians and Chihuahuas. The "nature" of human includes all possibilities of what it means to be human expressed in the capacity of the myriad events and conditions of human experience whether or not one actually achieves/experiences any of the realities of being human. I will never experience humanity as a man, but what it means to be human includes the male gender and my "humanity" is not diminished by my never being male. I don't remember being a zygote--but it is part of my and every other human's nature. It is the objective reality of the human species. At the moment of conception, one becomes what it means to be "human." The conceptus is an identifiable member of the human species--hence objectively human and deserving of "human rights.""


Next, Here is another incomplete sentence: "What something IS, rather than what it "could be," or "might be"....what it IS , WAS, and WILL BE...."
Obviously Felicity never heard of the philosophy that says you can never step into the same river twice. What "is, was, and will be" are three different things for ANY dynamic entity. Wear-and-tear, if nothing else, changes "was" to "is" and "is" to "will be". But Felicity seems to want you to think that dynamic things do not change. WRONG. Even a stone, buried inside a sedimentary layer, CHANGES (slightly, due to pressure) as other layers are added or removed above it. Too much, and it will break; its essence changes radically at that point. The essence of a human fetus changes radically as it grows; there is not doubt of this FACT. But Felicity wants you to think that its final essence is present even at the zygote stage. WRONG.

 

[Felicity]

The essence of a human fetus changes radically as it grows; there is not doubt of this FACT. .

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=essence

es·sence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.

An extract that has the fundamental properties of a substance in concentrated form.
Such an extract in a solution of alcohol.
A perfume or scent.
One that has or shows an abundance of a quality as if highly concentrated: a neighbor who is the essence of hospitality.
Something that exists, especially a spiritual or incorporeal entity.

 

[Felicity]

there is not doubt of this FACT.

Maybe you should avoid speaking in absolutes when you don't believe in absolutes.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "The "nature" thing to which both FI and I refer is expressed as follows: The reality of the being--the essence--the fundamental character--the inherent qualities of something that exists independently of the experience of that being. What something IS, rather than what it "could be," or "might be"....what it IS , WAS, and WILL BE.... The "nature" of a piece of paper includes the wood fiber from which it came and its purpose for which it will be used. The "nature" of a dog includes Dalmatians and Chihuahuas. The "nature" of human includes all possibilities of what it means to be human expressed in the capacity of the myriad events and conditions of human experience whether or not one actually achieves/experiences any of the realities of being human. I will never experience humanity as a man, but what it means to be human includes the male gender and my "humanity" is not diminished by my never being male. I don't remember being a zygote--but it is part of my and every other human's nature. It is the objective reality of the human species. At the moment of conception, one becomes what it means to be "human." The conceptus is an identifiable member of the human species--hence objectively human and deserving of "human rights.""


Next, let's tackle: "The "nature" of a piece of paper includes the wood fiber from which it came and its purpose for which it will be used."
While the first part of that is perfectly true, the second is questionable. Consider a body of natural ore. It's nature includes various physical properties, AND it existed long before humans came along to assign some sort of "purpose" to it. Or consider the juvenile deliquent who throws a rock through your window -- the ACT has purpose, but there is NO inherent purpose in the existence of the broken glass. The evidence, therefore, falsifies yet another aspect of Felicity's philosophy. I should note that one of the key things Felicity has stated elsewhere relates to Creationism. She thinks that EVERYTHING includes Purpose in its existence. Yet she also avoids thinking about the vast number of things that humans do "just to pass the time", leaving many many things behind (destruction included) that had no purpose beyond its existence. Felicity might want you to think that "existing for the purpose of existing" still counts as having Purpose, but don't be fooled into then thinking that existence-by-circular-logic MATTERS OBJECTIVELY. It doesn't -- and therefore what she wrote in Message #740 is just more say-so. Worthless.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "The essence of a human fetus changes radically as it grows; there is not doubt of this FACT." {I apologize for the typo; "not" should be "no"}

--and wrote: "es·sence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things. "


I STAND BY WHAT I WROTE. The essence of a normal adult human being includes very significant mental abilties, while the essence of a young fetus includes NONE of that. If you want essence that does not become enhanced during growth, then you are forced to keep it as simple as the statement: "All humans are essentially animals." By THAT essence, murder of adult humans should be no bigger a deal than slaughtering a chicken for lunch. However, BECAUSE THE ESSENCE OF HUMANS DOES BECOME ENHANCED DURING GROWTH, murder of an adult human remains a crime, while killing a merely human-animal fetus does not need to be a crime. An essence that exists NOW can be carried into the future; an essence that exists only in the future CANNOT be arbitrarily declared part of the past.

 

[Felicity]

I STAND BY WHAT I WROTE.

I know you do--and that is why it is impossible to converse with you. You cling to your vision of reality despite evidence to the contrary. You reject the very ESSENCE of the meaning of communication!

The essence of a normal adult human being includes very significant mental abilties, while the essence of a young fetus includes NONE of that.

But I am not talking about and adult or a less mature individual--I am talking about HUMANS. ALL humankind, not just a single segment. that is why you can't get it. You think the being changes depending on location or maturity. It simply doesn't.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "The "nature" thing to which both FI and I refer is expressed as follows: The reality of the being--the essence--the fundamental character--the inherent qualities of something that exists independently of the experience of that being. What something IS, rather than what it "could be," or "might be"....what it IS , WAS, and WILL BE.... The "nature" of a piece of paper includes the wood fiber from which it came and its purpose for which it will be used. The "nature" of a dog includes Dalmatians and Chihuahuas. The "nature" of human includes all possibilities of what it means to be human expressed in the capacity of the myriad events and conditions of human experience whether or not one actually achieves/experiences any of the realities of being human. I will never experience humanity as a man, but what it means to be human includes the male gender and my "humanity" is not diminished by my never being male. I don't remember being a zygote--but it is part of my and every other human's nature. It is the objective reality of the human species. At the moment of conception, one becomes what it means to be "human." The conceptus is an identifiable member of the human species--hence objectively human and deserving of "human rights.""

Next, let's tackle: "The "nature" of human includes all possibilities of what it means to be human expressed in the capacity of the myriad events and conditions of human experience whether or not one actually achieves/experiences any of the realities of being human."
Obviously this also includes the genetically faulty, the incompetent, the insane, the infertile, the murderous, the cancerous, and all the other unpleasant things about humans. Not to mention the oddball cases like the chimeric, or the forestry ranger who survived seven or eight lightning strikes across several years, and then committed suicide because he couldn't take it any more (true story IIRR). YES, THE NATURE OF FULLY DEVELOPED HUMANS ENCOMPASSES MANY THINGS. But to claim that undeveloped humans are fully equivalent to developed humans is to lie, pure and simple. Young-enough, and they can't even BREATHE. Younger-enough, and they can't even BLEED. Are breathing and bleeding aspects of the human essence/nature, or aren't they? Once again, Felicity claims that having the POTENTIAL for various abilities and traits is as valid as actually having those abilities and traits. WRONG. Even she knows that potentials need not be fulfilled.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "I STAND BY WHAT I WROTE."

--and wrote: "I know you do--and that is why it is impossible to converse with you. You cling to your vision of reality despite evidence to the contrary. You reject the very ESSENCE of the meaning of communication!"


WRONG. The essences of different things are different. THAT IS A FACT. Two pieces of paper may appear identical, but in essence differ very significantly at the level of directions-of-cellulose-fibers. Two absolutely-perfectly-pure silicon crystals may be identical in every respect down to the numbers and relative positions of atoms, but STILL have different essences because they are made of different silicon atoms and occupy different points in space-time (they have different "quantum states"). THAT is why your philosophy is fundamentally flawed; you seek to proclaim a generic essence for humans that does not and can not exist, because all humans are different.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "The essence of a normal adult human being includes very significant mental abilties, while the essence of a young fetus includes NONE of that."

--and wrote: "But I am not talking about and adult or a less mature individual--I am talking about HUMANS. ALL humankind, not just a single segment. that is why you can't get it. You think the being changes depending on location or maturity. It simply doesn't."


WRONG, AGAIN. Ask any physicist about "quantum states". This is the most fundamental description possible (how's that for "essence"?) for any physical thing. AND IT DIFFERS FOR ALMOST EVERY PHYSICAL THING. Having the same quantum state is almost absolutely forbidden to most ordinary particles ("fermions"); it is equivalant to having two things occupy the same place at the same time. (The commonest exception are photons ("bosons"); they are allowed to possess identical quantum states, and sometimes they do that in fact. But electrons, protons, and neutrons are all fermions, and under ordinary Earthly conditions, they ALWAYS have different quantum states.)

 

[Felicity]

Are you still riding this wagon sissy-boy?

 

[Felicity]

Are breathing and bleeding aspects of the human essence/nature, or aren't they?

Yep...and just as I won't ever experience growing facial hair (God willing:lol: ), and you won't ever give birth...we are both humans with equal dignity. Just because I am in my thirties and another is in his forties doesn't mean he is worth MORE because he's got "time" on me--we are both humans with equal dignity. Just because I am healthy and another has a withered arm, does not mean I am better...we are both humans of equal dignity. Just because I am walking around this earth independently, and another is carried within my womb dependant on my actions and choices, does not mean that I am MORE human than she...we are both humans of equal dignity. Our worth is not based on our experience, our age, our ability--it is based on our intrinsic, inherent, unchanging essence--we are HUMAN.

Once again, Felicity claims that having the POTENTIAL for various abilities and traits is as valid as actually having those abilities and traits. WRONG. Even she knows that potentials need not be fulfilled.

You can keep saying things that you want to attribute to me, but your repetition does not make it so. I have flatly expressed that "potential" is moot on numerous occasions to you. So many times it is silly, yet you keep saying I claim potential is important. It is not. It is irrelevant because potential suggests that there is a state that exists now that will change--it won't. I can't become a dog and take on a canine nature. I will ALWAYS have a human nature. I've had it since I was conceived, and I will have it until I cease to exist.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "Once again, Felicity claims that having the POTENTIAL for various abilities and traits is as valid as actually having those abilities and traits. WRONG. Even she knows that potentials need not be fulfilled."

--and wrote: "You can keep saying things that you want to attribute to me, but your repetition does not make it so. I have flatly expressed that "potential" is moot on numerous occasions to you. So many times it is silly, yet you keep saying I claim potential is important. It is not. It is irrelevant because potential suggests that there is a state that exists now that will change--it won't. I can't become a dog and take on a canine nature. I will ALWAYS have a human nature. I've had it since I was conceived, and I will have it until I cease to exist."


ONLY PARTLY TRUE. You have always had PART of the totality of human nature; you said so yourself (referring to facial hair or other male characteristics as parts you don't have). YET YOU INSIST THAT YOU ALWAYS HAD YOUR PARTS OF HUMAN NATURE, AND THIS IS FALSE. See below:


Felicity quoted: "Are breathing and bleeding aspects of the human essence/nature, or aren't they?"

--and wrote: "Yep...and just as I won't ever experience growing facial hair (God willing ), and you won't ever give birth...we are both humans with equal dignity. Just because I am in my thirties and another is in his forties doesn't mean he is worth MORE because he's got "time" on me--we are both humans with equal dignity. Just because I am healthy and another has a withered arm, does not mean I am better...we are both humans of equal dignity. Just because I am walking around this earth independently, and another is carried within my womb dependant on my actions and choices, does not mean that I am MORE human than she...we are both humans of equal dignity. Our worth is not based on our experience, our age, our ability--it is based on our intrinsic, inherent, unchanging essence--we are HUMAN."


SEE??? WHEN YOU WERE AN EMBRYO YOU DID NOT THEN HAVE THE HUMAN NATURE OF BREATHING OR BLEEDING. They were POTENTIAL; those parts you acquired in reality during actual growth. Just as when you (I assume) reached puberty, you acquired additional parts of human nature, unique to females, which to a young child are also only POTENTIAL (menstruation, for example). Similarly, the young fetus has no mental abilities whatsoever, those parts of the overall human nature are also acquired during growth. YET YOU CONTINUE TO CLAIM THE FETUS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING THEM, WHEN IN UTTER FACT THEY ARE ONLY POTENTIAL!!!!!

The actual facts are that the human fetus is an animal. Yes, it is a human animal, but that does not make it, objectively, more special than any other animal. It is only human egotism that claims otherwise, and even you know that egotistical claims are purely subjective, not objective. Worthless, therefore!

 

[Felicity]

SEE??? WHEN YOU WERE AN EMBRYO YOU DID NOT THEN HAVE THE HUMAN NATURE OF BREATHING OR BLEEDING. They were POTENTIAL; those parts you acquired in reality during actual growth. Just as when you (I assume) reached puberty, you acquired additional parts of human nature, unique to females, which to a young child are also only POTENTIAL (menstruation, for example). Similarly, the young fetus has no mental abilities whatsoever, those parts of the overall human nature are also acquired during growth. YET YOU CONTINUE TO CLAIM THE FETUS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING THEM, WHEN IN UTTER FACT THEY ARE ONLY POTENTIAL!!!!!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=essence

es·sence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.

na·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr)
n.

The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: “She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble” (Gertrude Stein).
The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: “Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill” (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.



in·her·ent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.


in·trin·sic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-trnzk, -sk)
adj.
Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.

es·sen·tial ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-snshl)
adj.
Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.

re·al1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rl, rl)
adj.

Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.
True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.
...
Being no less than what is stated; worthy of the name: a real friend.
Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation: tourists hoping for a real experience on the guided tour.
Not to be taken lightly; serious: in real trouble.
Philosophy. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.

 

[Felicity]

AND FINALLY.........

That which doesn't fit.....


po·ten·tial ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-tnshl)
adj.
Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem.

Where I think the problem lies is in THIS part of the definition:


The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.
Something possessing the capacity for growth or development.



But NOTE--the thing POSESSES the capacity....it is not attained at some future point....

Something cannot be the essence--AND--potential....the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "SEE??? WHEN YOU WERE AN EMBRYO YOU DID NOT THEN HAVE THE HUMAN NATURE OF BREATHING OR BLEEDING. They were POTENTIAL"

--and wrote: "es·sence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something. The most important ingredient; the crucial element. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things." {along with some other definitions}

SO? THE FACT IS THAT HUMANS CHANGE WITH TIME. "Identical twins" aren't truly perfectly identical, because of that fact. The DNA you received as a zygote has mutated since, slightly, under influence of cosmic rays at least. COMPARE the DNA of many thousands of randomly-selected people, and measure the "spread" of differences, and you will find (IIRR) something like a 4% range -- yet a chimpanzee's DNA is only about 2% different from "average" human DNA. According to Bible, humans used to have lifespans of hundreds of years (Noah got to be 600 or so, eh?). If ever was true, it isn't now, and so that aspect of human nature has changed. It is POSSIBLE that prior to Tower of Babel incident humans were telepathic (did you know that ideograms, most ancient form of writing, is natural for telepaths?). If ever was true (perhaps for bigger-brained Cro-Magnon Man?), THAT aspect of human nature has changed. Your argument is is all about UNCHANGING nature, appropriate to rocks and INAPPLICABLE to humans -- and therefore worthless.

Here is part of what you wrote over in the "Explain Your Reasoning" Thread, in one of your first posts there (#398): "but as a species--it is how man is made--it is mankind's "nature"--in the totality of his being. Sans illness or trauma, the nature of the human person is able to comprehend the abstract and extrapolate meaning from it as well as determine his course via self-will"

THE TOTALITY OF BEING OF A YOUNG FETUS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY MENTAL CAPABILITIES WHATSOEVER. If Human Nature is defined by mental abilities, then EITHER (A) the fetus doesn't have Human Nature; OR (B) Human Nature is acquired --CHANGES-- as a fetus develops. A crawler-stage human has a certain amount of self-will, but no ability to extrapolate meaning from the abstract. IF Human Nature is unchanging, and is defined as quoted above, then the crawler-stage human DOES NOT HAVE Human Nature. And neither does any unborn human, either. PERIOD. IF Human Nature changes with growth, then unborn humans have PART of the totality, as I've stated in other messages -- but not enough for them to be declared as more-than-animal, as I've also stated. Per YOUR definition of Human Nature, therefore, abortion is NOT wrong!

 

[Felicity]

Wow:shock: ....Cosmic rays...eh?:rofl