• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Explain Your Reasoning.

[Quote = Futureincoming]
Finally, while Fantasea refuses to consider the question of what REALLY defines a person, such that it can be Universally applied, I think it would be entertaining to mention the following logic:
1. Many humans believe an entity exists which they call "God"
2. Some believe God created both humans and the Earth (called "Terra" in Latin)
(I suspect this group includes most of the most-dedicated of the anti-abortion crowd, due to religious beliefs. This group of humans is relevant below. Please note that I do not include Fantasea in it, due to lack of data.)
3. If God created humans, then God cannot be a human.
4. If God created Terra, then God must be extra-terrestrial in origin.
5. If "persons" are limited to humans only, then God is not a person.
Therefore I conclude that everyone described by 2. above, who also thinks that God qualifies as a person, needs to do something about the definition of "person".
After which, heh heh heh, I tend to think that NO unborn human will EVER qualify -- and the abortion debate, with that group at least, can Officially End.
The only reason you wish to turn this discussion into one of theology is because you cannot prove your claim on the basis of biology.
But I'm still waiting for one of them to take up the challenge:
"Define "person" to be Universally applicable and accurate, regardless of physical nature (God is claimed to be non-biological, right?). Then explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too." Good Luck!
 
[Quote = Futureincoming]
Fantasea wrote: "Brainpower is not the criteria for the right to live; humanness is."

Futureincoming wrote: "
As before, you continue to be illogical.
1. Humans CLAIM to be special.
2. Humans CLAIM a right to life based on 1.
3. When asked the nature of the specialness claimed in 1., the answer is "brainpower".
The conundrum begins when humans lacking brainpower are considered.
4. The corollary of 3. is that humans lacking brainpower cannot be special.
5. The corollary of 2. is that a right to life cannot be claimed for nonspecial humans.

That is very simple logic, with simple statements and no strange semantics.
YOU are essentially claiming that human specialness exists even when brainpower is lacking, but you have utterly failed to provide any data supporting the claim. You might as well try to "save your cake for later, and eat it at the same time". Logically impossible."
Certain truths are self-evident; among them that human life, in every stage, is superior to any other form of life whether animal, vegetable, or as you are fond of mentioning, from time to time, alien. If you disagree, kindly cite a few legitimate sources to substantiate your claim.
Fantasea wrote: "My sole claim is the biological fact that the product of conception is a living, growing, developing, unborn human child.

FutureIncoming replies: "I do not dispute THAT statement at all, EXCEPT for the hypocrisy associated with improperly including the word "child".
I have previously shown you evidence that at the legislatures of at least twenty states plus the federal government have codified the existence of the unborn child. Since you choose to ignore this, any hypocrisy regarding unborn children is solely yours.
Fantasea wrote: "You have, thus far, chosen to try to bend, twist, and contort that biological fact into something which it is not. You have been unsuccessful because facts are resilient. They always spring back to their origins."

FutureIncoming replies: "You are mistaking my efforts. I am not trying to contort any biological facts. I am discussing aspects of the notion that just because human life happens to exist, that does not mean it MATTERS, objectively. And even subjectively with respect to humans, where human life can logically be expected to matter, that does not mean it matters everywhere and all the time. So far YOU have failed to provide any evidence indicating that human life matters objectively, OR that among humans it actually matters everywhere and all the time. So far as I can see, you are claiming that certain human lives matter only because you can financially benefit from their suffering. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"
Earlier, someone, perhaps you, accused me of resorting to circular logic. What you have written above goes far beyond simple circular logic. It more closely resembles a spiral staircase.
Fantasea wrote: "I have asked you to furnish facts from a medical or scientific source which will support your claim. You have not done so and consistently lean on the Roe v. Wade opinion."

FutureIncoming replies: "Since I have not made any claims that distort human biology, I do not need to furnish any facts in support of non-existent claims. To the extent that I have referenced Roe vs. Wade, that is simply because it IS relevant to a discussion about when human life MATTERS to humans."
I take this as an admission that you are unable to furnish facts from a medical or scientific source which will support your claim.

If I am mistaken, you should be anxiously willing and certainly able to offer irrefutable proof.
 
FutureIncoming said:
To Busta:
From the strewn-out messages that steen has posted, I gather that this is what he is talking about:
When sperm fertilizes ovum, a hydatidiform mole may result, instead of a normal zygote. It is apparently able to do cell-division and attach to the uterus to obtain nutrients, just like a normal zygote. It is able to grow to some arbitrary size before the woman's body notices that it is not hosting a normal embryo or fetus, and that is when the hydatidiform mole is expelled/"born" (but I personally think the whole topic is just another variant of genetic machinery gone awry, such as can lead to an ordinary miscarriage).

With that as the background, look at the basic pro-life definition of "person", as supplied by Fantasea: "A living growing organism having human DNA" -- or words to that effect. And steen has indicated that in the very early stages of growth, there is no way to tell the difference between mole and embryo. The basic definition of "person" therefore declares that a hydatidiform mole must be called a person. Now, Fantasea has also more recently tried to include a specification that the human organism be able to grow into a child -- but does he realize that such a definition would EXCLUDE human adults?

Haw, haw, haw!!!

About how far along in the pregnancy does the hydatidiform mole exist before the woman's body expells it? Also, is there any way, in the early stages of pregnancy, to tell rather the FEZ is, in fact, a FEZ and not a hydatidiform mole? What are the names of such tests, or how is the hydatidiform mole detected?
 
Last edited:
Fantasea quoted: 'Next, it is actually a true fact that you are still hypocritically putting the word "child" in a sentence where it does not belong. It is also actually a true fact that you are continuing to make an unproved claim (the sentence that includes the phrase "absolute right"). It is also actually a true fact that human rights are associated with human abilities. For example, it is actually a true fact that young children do not have the right or priviledge to drive an automobile. And it is actually a true fact that unborn humans do not have an inherent right to live, if for no other reason than: It is actually a true fact that even fully adult humans do not have an inherent right to live; otherwise many myriads of adults would not have been killed by a tsunami in Descember 2004. The so-called "right to live" is actually in truth and fact just a convenient fiction and priviledge that various humans have granted to various other humans. And finally, YOU actually and in true fact have no right to arbitrarily by-fiat replace one set of human priviledges with another, especially when you would be giving more privileges to the incapable than to the capable. Haven't you learned that privileges are usually EARNED, not granted?

Now, if you should possibly happen to decide that any of the sentences in the previous paragraph is less than complete truth, then you had better be able to explain in detail, supported by actual true facts."


Fantasea wrote: 'First, your use of the word “true” as an adjective modifier for the word “fact” is superfluous since a fact is inherently true. Or, perhaps, you know of some “false” facts which you would care to share.


FutureIncoming replied: "... you are quibbling. Complaining about the way I chose to express certain facts in no way counts as evidence that the statements are false."

Fantasea responed: "It is obvious that you misunderstand the meaning of the word "quibble"."

FutureIncoming quotes from www.dictionary.com: "quibble: 1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections."

FutureIncoming also writes: "It may indeed be superfluous to describe something as "true fact" instead of simply as "fact", but IT IS INDEED A QUIBBLE to focus on the adjectives and not on the sentences."
 
Fantasea quoted: "Regarding priviledges, you are correct that the Declaration of Independence CLAIMS that there is a Right to Life. HOWEVER, that document is a POLITICAL statement, not a scientific statement. Where is your Right to Life if lightning hits you? It is precisely because there is in actual fact NO Right to Life anywhere in all of Nature that I chose to use the word "privilege". Technical accuracy IS better than political correctness, and the Right To Life in politics is indeed a convenient fiction."

Fantasea wrote: "So you say, politically, there is a right to life, but scientifically, there is not. I marvel at your ability to invent convoluted statements in an attempt to bolster your convoluted position."


NO, I DO NOT SAY "politically, there is a right to life". I SAY, "politically, there is a CLAIMED right to life, in spite of the scientific evidence." Such a political statement is equivalent to a Party Line that Global Warming is a non-issue, or that the Sun goes around the Earth. And therefore the convolutions you mention are entirely of your own creation, for attributing to me things I did not say.
 
Fantasea wrote: "Your reliance on the written opinion of Justice Harry Blackmun is not as universally respected as you seem to believe. In fact, liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz also think Roe was bad law."


I did not see (to quote) the specific statement I made that led you to say that. Would you be more specific about what I wrote that relies on the judicial opinion you specify? Thanks.
 
I'm not sure how science could evidence a philosophical *truth*, one way or the other, but Murder statutes (and similar) are founded on the Right to life; the logic being that the act of terminating ones life, without "a legal authority or excuse", is a violation of that philosophical Right. I do not believe that our Founding Fathers used science to observe the Right to Life.
 
Fantasea quoted: "Finally, while Fantasea refuses to consider the question of what REALLY defines a person, such that it can be Universally applied, I think it would be entertaining to mention the following logic:
1. Many humans believe an entity exists which they call "God"
2. Some believe God created both humans and the Earth (called "Terra" in Latin)
(I suspect this group includes most of the most-dedicated of the anti-abortion crowd, due to religious beliefs. This group of humans is relevant below. Please note that I do not include Fantasea in it, due to lack of data.)
3. If God created humans, then God cannot be a human.
4. If God created Terra, then God must be extra-terrestrial in origin.
5. If "persons" are limited to humans only, then God is not a person.
Therefore I conclude that everyone described by 2. above, who also thinks that God qualifies as a person, needs to do something about the definition of "person"."

Fantasea wrote: "The only reason you wish to turn this discussion into one of theology is because you cannot prove your claim on the basis of biology."


Before I get to the main point, I ask that you be more specific about "you cannot prove your claim on the basis of biology". What claim, precisely? (I note something in one of your other posts that may be a clarification, and I will deal with it, but just in case it isn't....)

NOW. You are utterly mistaking the logic of the quoted post at top, because it actually has nothing to do with theology. It has to do with CONSISTENCY.
1. Start with a human who has a particular definition in mind for "person", which happens to encompass humans.
2. Has that human ever expressed an opinion or belief that some sort of non-human person may exist?
3. If the answer to 2. is "yes", then, is the definition of "person" mentioned in 1. adequate to encompass both humans and that non-human?
4. If the answer to 3. is "no", then the defintion of "person" mentioned in 1. MUST be revised, by the human also mentioned in 1.

Those 4 logical steps DO NOT CARE about theology. It applies just as well to followers of Erich von Daniken's "ancient astronaut" hypothesis just as much as it applies to ancestor-worshippers and alien-abduction claimants and Area-51 conspiracy-theorists, not to mention believers in leprechauns and other Faery folk.

SO: In the text quoted at top, a particular group of humans were identified as claiming that a non-human intelligence exists. THAT GROUP ONLY (a subgroup of the Creationists, to be more specific: "everyone described by 2. above, who also thinks that God qualifies as a person") was indicated as being in need of studying and probably enhancing their definition of "person". And YOU were not required to be included in it; didn't you notice?
 
[Quote = Futureincoming]
Fantasea quoted: "Well, there are Scenarios and then there are Scenarios.
Can you agree that any Scenario in which population rises in exact synchronization with production-of-goods is perfectly equivalent to the initially static Scenario above? If so, can you then agree that WHENEVER population happens to rise faster than goods-production (regardless of whether the cause be a spurt in population growth or a breakdown in production), then wages tend to suffer and prices tend to rise? Have you noticed the Historical tendency for businesses to seek to monopolize a market, just so goods-production can be restricted to the highest-profit-margin point? And have you noticed that when one company buys out another, the total number of jobs always goes down?"
What I have noticed is that in countries in which people are free to engage in business and commerce with minimal governmental interference and reasonable taxation, the natural economic laws operate to raise the living standards of all who wish to avail themselves of the extant opportunities to participate. Barring disability, those who decide to opt out get exactly that to which they are entitled.

It is the efforts of businesses to expand and prosper which has created the enormous pool of ever better jobs which are available to those who have prepared themselves for them. As has been often observed, “When one door closes, another opens.”
Fantasea wrote: "Irrespective of all you have written, consider this. The number of jobs in the US continues to increase. The living standard in the US continues to increase. The life expectancy in the US continues to increase."
FutureIncoming replies: "How interesting that you chose to begin your remarks with "irrespective", thereby indicating you want to ignore what you quoted, as if no facts were present. Anyway, the US is not a simple Scenario. You are comparing apples and oranges. I will clarify, however the quoted thing I wrote about jobs. I was referring to the total jobs that previously existed within the two companies, before one bought the other. Some of the employees will have to compete for the retained jobs.
The use of the word ‘irrespective” indicates I have noted your comments and consider them to be outweighed by mine.

What you are stating is a basic fact of economics. Progress requires change. Change requires disruption. Disruption can be for better or for worse, depending upon the way it is managed. Businesses come and go.

Well established, well managed, major corporations have been driven out of business by a single incident. Do the names PanAm Airways and TWA ring a bell? Pan Am flight 103, which disintegrated over Lockerbie, Scotland and TWA flight 800 disintegrated off Long Island, New York. Both companies were gone within a year after their “incidents” because the public stopped buying tickets due to a perception that terrorist activity was involved.

In each case, overall air travel did not decrease, the other carriers expanded, hiring from the former Pan Am and TWA employees.

The oil crisis during the Carter Administration decimated the US automobile business and changed forever the retail petroleum industry.

The proliferation of automobiles and the expansion of the federal highway system doomed the railroads.

There are hundreds of similar stories. However, despite all of the economic “horrors”, a line graph of the US economy , the US standard of living, and the US prosperity, from 1940 to the present, while resembling the teeth of a saw, has been pointing ever upward. This is a tribute to American business savvy.
Something you wrote in a prior message, about how a good worker doesn't need a Minimum Wage, doesn't always ring true when the Law of Supply and Demand is added. In the situation where an acquired company dumps some workers, it is easy to think that some of those workers were as competent as the ones who were retained. So, which will the company prefer to keep, when competency is equivalent? Ignoring seniority, the answer is, "the ones who will accept the lesser wage!!!" THAT's what I meant when I wrote (not quoted here) something about how extra people puts pressure on wages, to drop.
In the grand scheme, (an expression I am borrowing) it’s up to workers to prepare themselves, apply themselves diligently and make themselves desirable. If they do, they are either the ones who are retained or who quickly find equal or better employment elsewhere.

We are all acquainted with the type of employee who deserves to be “dumped”.

I should apologize for not mentioning that the Scenarios I described had inflation deliberately excluded from them; I simply forgot to actually say so. Thank you for accepting it as an assumption (by also not saying anything). In the ordinary world, of course, wages don't go down all that often, because of inflation. But if the Scenarios had included inflation, then I would have written something like, "prices would go up at a rate in comparison to which inflating-of-wages is left behind", or "overall buying power goes down".
I don’t believe that prices and wages are the true test. The true test is the standard of living enabled by working. For example, in many countries, one can never improve his standard above subsistence or climb the economic ladder, while in the US, within reason, the limits are self-imposed.
Fantasea wrote: "Two incomes are required to afford two new cars, multiple cell phones, homes, furnishings, clothing, and, in general, a preferred lifestyle far above the basics."
FutureIncoming replies: "Generally true, but that is not what a Minimum Wage is about. It is about the fact that if someone gets a job, the employer generally wants the employee to BE ABLE to show up as scheduled. How is this physically possible if the job pays a wage so low that the basics cannot be met? It seems to me that if {A} "Human Life Is Valuable", then the wage should be able to cover the basics. But if {B} "Human Life is Not Valuable", then the logical things for an employer to do are (1) Pay as tiny a wage as possible, (2) Say to the starving employee who requests a raise, "There's plenty more where YOU came from, who'd be glad to have your job!", and (3) Actively oppose abortion, to help ensure that plenty more people enter the competition for jobs, and allowing continuation of policies (1) and (2).

Guess which of {A} or {B} that employers seem to be seeking to do the most, out there in today's economy.
Are you arguing the case for socialism? It would seem so.

You note that the goal of business is to maximize profits. Paying workers more than their labor is worth would prevent achieving that goal, would discourage investment, and would have the effect of reducing the number of jobs available. What good would that do?

On the other hand, those who wish to improve their worth to an employer and merit greater incomes find it relatively easy to do so.

Minimum wage flies in the face of supply and demand. It is simply a means to enable high school kids to earn some pocket money flipping burgers or packing out grocery shelves, or to for employers to purchase low quality labor from those who cannot or will not offer more. Anyone who believes that the minimum wage should support a family is sorely mistaken.

Suppose, for the moment, that the minimum wage was raised to $20 per hour, roughly $40,000 per year. I contend that there would be two results.

First, now a single wage earner could support a family of four or five.

Second, 90% of the jobs which formerly paid less than that would disappear.

What would be the benefit?
 
Busta wrote: "I'm not sure how science could evidence a philosophical *truth*, one way or the other, but Murder statutes (and similar) are founded on the Right to life; the logic being that the act of terminating ones life, without "a legal authority or excuse", is a violation of that philosophical Right. I do not believe that our Founding Fathers used science to observe the Right to Life."


Merely calling something a Truth does not make it so. Consider an analogy with Geometry: Euclid specified five "postulates" or "axioms" as the foundation of the subject. Here's a link: http://www.health.uottawa.ca/biomech/csb/laws/euclid.htm
And here's a link concerning the meaning of axioms and postulates: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Postulate

Heh, in looking at the first few sentences at that second link, it seems to me that I don't need to add much here. I shall only ask this: If you are walking down a road and get hit by lightning and killed, then exactly how is it a Truth that you had a Right to Life?
 
FutureIncoming said:
Fantasea quoted: 'Next, it is actually a true fact that you are still hypocritically putting the word "child" in a sentence where it does not belong. It is also actually a true fact that you are continuing to make an unproved claim (the sentence that includes the phrase "absolute right"). It is also actually a true fact that human rights are associated with human abilities. For example, it is actually a true fact that young children do not have the right or priviledge to drive an automobile. And it is actually a true fact that unborn humans do not have an inherent right to live, if for no other reason than: It is actually a true fact that even fully adult humans do not have an inherent right to live; otherwise many myriads of adults would not have been killed by a tsunami in Descember 2004. The so-called "right to live" is actually in truth and fact just a convenient fiction and priviledge that various humans have granted to various other humans. And finally, YOU actually and in true fact have no right to arbitrarily by-fiat replace one set of human priviledges with another, especially when you would be giving more privileges to the incapable than to the capable. Haven't you learned that privileges are usually EARNED, not granted?

Now, if you should possibly happen to decide that any of the sentences in the previous paragraph is less than complete truth, then you had better be able to explain in detail, supported by actual true facts."


Fantasea wrote: 'First, your use of the word “true” as an adjective modifier for the word “fact” is superfluous since a fact is inherently true. Or, perhaps, you know of some “false” facts which you would care to share.


FutureIncoming replied: "... you are quibbling. Complaining about the way I chose to express certain facts in no way counts as evidence that the statements are false."

Fantasea responed: "It is obvious that you misunderstand the meaning of the word "quibble"."

FutureIncoming quotes from www.dictionary.com: "quibble: 1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections."

FutureIncoming also writes: "It may indeed be superfluous to describe something as "true fact" instead of simply as "fact", but IT IS INDEED A QUIBBLE to focus on the adjectives and not on the sentences."
You simply attempted to swap the use of the attributes of the word "privilege" for the attributes of the word "right", ignoring the essential differences between the words.

Since this is nothing more than a bare-faced effort at rhetorical distortion, I correctly rejected your premise as invalid. By your very own dictionary definition, this is not "quibbling". It is merely not letting contortion of the truth pass unnoticed.

Since you are reliant on the dictionary, why not furnish a dictionary definition for the words "right" and "privilege" in the context of this discussion?
 
FutureIncoming said:
Fantasea quoted: "Regarding priviledges, you are correct that the Declaration of Independence CLAIMS that there is a Right to Life. HOWEVER, that document is a POLITICAL statement, not a scientific statement. Where is your Right to Life if lightning hits you? It is precisely because there is in actual fact NO Right to Life anywhere in all of Nature that I chose to use the word "privilege". Technical accuracy IS better than political correctness, and the Right To Life in politics is indeed a convenient fiction."

Fantasea wrote: "So you say, politically, there is a right to life, but scientifically, there is not. I marvel at your ability to invent convoluted statements in an attempt to bolster your convoluted position."
NO, I DO NOT SAY "politically, there is a right to life". I SAY, "politically, there is a CLAIMED right to life, in spite of the scientific evidence." Such a political statement is equivalent to a Party Line that Global Warming is a non-issue, or that the Sun goes around the Earth. And therefore the convolutions you mention are entirely of your own creation, for attributing to me things I did not say.
No one has ever refuted the scientific evidence that holds the product of conception to be fully human and fully living. Are you able to refute this?

If not, then the rest of your argument falls flat, doesn't it?
 
Sorry if this is off topic....

FutureIncoming said:
I'm waiting for a pro-lifer to take up this challenge:
"Define "person" to be Universally applicable and accurate, regardless of physical nature, to distinguish people from mere animals.
For example, if God exists, is non-biological, and is a person, then God is a person because {--put definitive criteria here--}.
After that, please explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too.
Good Luck!


"if God exists, is non-biological, and is a person, then God is a person because...." {He is in the totality of His being (his nature) intelligence that can comprehend the abstract and extrapolate from there based on self-will}

It is true that many humans are incapable of that type of conceptualization--such as the unborn and severely retarded or physically traumatized--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 as demonstrated in individual's lifespan.

Animals can't do that.
 
Fantasea wrote: "Brainpower is not the criteria for the right to live; humanness is."

Futureincoming wrote: "
As before, you continue to be illogical.
1. Humans CLAIM to be special.
2. Humans CLAIM a right to life based on 1.
3. When asked the nature of the specialness claimed in 1., the answer is "brainpower".
The conundrum begins when humans lacking brainpower are considered.
4. The corollary of 3. is that humans lacking brainpower cannot be special.
5. The corollary of 2. is that a right to life cannot be claimed for nonspecial humans.

That is very simple logic, with simple statements and no strange semantics.
YOU are essentially claiming that human specialness exists even when brainpower is lacking, but you have utterly failed to provide any data supporting the claim. You might as well try to "save your cake for later, and eat it at the same time". Logically impossible."


Fantasea wrote: "Certain truths are self-evident; among them that human life, in every stage, is superior to any other form of life whether animal, vegetable, or as you are fond of mentioning, from time to time, alien. If you disagree, kindly cite a few legitimate sources to substantiate your claim.



Why, certainly; I'll select just two of that "every stage", you claimed. And knowledge about these two stages is so common that I don't need to look for a formal reference.
(1) Just look at any newborn animal. Just about all of them EXCEPT human babies can get up and walk within an hour or two of being born. How is the human superior, therefore?
(2) Once born, humans are among the slowest-developing of creatures. A dog at four months can do a variety of tricks, for one example among many, while a human of four months is still crying in its bed when it needs something. WHERE is that so-called self-evident superiority, again?
 
FutureIncoming said:
Fantasea quoted: "Finally, while Fantasea refuses to consider the question of what REALLY defines a person, such that it can be Universally applied, I think it would be entertaining to mention the following logic:
1. Many humans believe an entity exists which they call "God"
2. Some believe God created both humans and the Earth (called "Terra" in Latin)
(I suspect this group includes most of the most-dedicated of the anti-abortion crowd, due to religious beliefs. This group of humans is relevant below. Please note that I do not include Fantasea in it, due to lack of data.)
3. If God created humans, then God cannot be a human.
4. If God created Terra, then God must be extra-terrestrial in origin.
5. If "persons" are limited to humans only, then God is not a person.
Therefore I conclude that everyone described by 2. above, who also thinks that God qualifies as a person, needs to do something about the definition of "person"."

Fantasea wrote: "The only reason you wish to turn this discussion into one of theology is because you cannot prove your claim on the basis of biology."


Before I get to the main point, I ask that you be more specific about "you cannot prove your claim on the basis of biology". What claim, precisely? (I note something in one of your other posts that may be a clarification, and I will deal with it, but just in case it isn't....)

NOW. You are utterly mistaking the logic of the quoted post at top, because it actually has nothing to do with theology. It has to do with CONSISTENCY.
1. Start with a human who has a particular definition in mind for "person", which happens to encompass humans.
2. Has that human ever expressed an opinion or belief that some sort of non-human person may exist?
3. If the answer to 2. is "yes", then, is the definition of "person" mentioned in 1. adequate to encompass both humans and that non-human?
4. If the answer to 3. is "no", then the defintion of "person" mentioned in 1. MUST be revised, by the human also mentioned in 1.

Those 4 logical steps DO NOT CARE about theology. It applies just as well to followers of Erich von Daniken's "ancient astronaut" hypothesis just as much as it applies to ancestor-worshippers and alien-abduction claimants and Area-51 conspiracy-theorists, not to mention believers in leprechauns and other Faery folk.

SO: In the text quoted at top, a particular group of humans were identified as claiming that a non-human intelligence exists. THAT GROUP ONLY (a subgroup of the Creationists, to be more specific: "everyone described by 2. above, who also thinks that God qualifies as a person") was indicated as being in need of studying and probably enhancing their definition of "person". And YOU were not required to be included in it; didn't you notice?
Biologically, the product of conception is a living human. Politics are not requited to take notice of biological fact.

While men have no control of biological fact, they are emminently able to look at a biological fact and accept it, reject it, or characterize it as something which it is not. That is the nature of politics.

I am reminded of the following:

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant."

In politics, in a situation in which there are a limited number of choices, all it takes is a few more leaning one way than the other to make a decision. This, in no way guarantees the validity of said decision, the only guarantee is that a decision has been made.
 
FutureIncoming said:
YOU are essentially claiming that human specialness exists even when brainpower is lacking, but you have utterly failed to provide any data supporting the claim. ?

Does the "nature" of the creature "man" count? Man's nature is determined by belonging to the species--and man's nature is demontrated over the course of a lifespan of an individual "person" of that species.

Man is special because of the uniqueness of the experience of the species "man."
 
Felicity quoted: "I'm waiting for a pro-lifer to take up this challenge:
"Define "person" to be Universally applicable and accurate, regardless of physical nature, to distinguish people from mere animals.
For example, if God exists, is non-biological, and is a person, then God is a person because {--put definitive criteria here--}.
After that, please explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too.
Good Luck!


Felicity wrote: "if God exists, is non-biological, and is a person, then God is a person because.... {He is in the totality of His being (his nature) intelligence that can comprehend the abstract and extrapolate from there based on self-will}

It is true that many humans are incapable of that type of conceptualization--such as the unborn and severely retarded or physically traumatized--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 as demonstrated in individual's lifespan."


Felicity also made a comment regarding the on-topic nature of these messages. Have no concern! The definition of "person" is at the very heart of the abortion debate. If all the unborn can be proved to qualify as people, then killing them is murder and abortions must cease -- while if all the unborn can be proved to be not-people, then killing them is not murder and abortions can continue. OR, if at some point during pregnancy, it can be proved that "this is when personhood begins for humans", then prior to that point abortions can be allowed, but forbidden after that point. THE WHOLE DEBATE CAN END, with such proof available (nobody still argues that the Sun goes around the Earth, do they?). However, for any of the above possilbilties to be proved, an absolutely rigorous and accurate and universally applicable definition of "person" is essential. Arbitrary claims are worthless.


Your suggested definition seems mostly reasonable; at least it allows for a wide variety of non-human intelligences. However, it looks to me like you are inviting a major discussion about "totality of being". The narrow view, of course, is to look at a creature and say, "What you see is what you analyze". But suppose the creature is an ant. In this case we know that the individual ant isn't much, but all the ants in a colony DO constitute a greater organism than the ant alone. We have no reason to think that an ant-colony organism qualifies as a Person, but at least we have to do some serious thinking about just what "totality of being" is supposed to mean. Out there in the wide Universe might be some multi-bodied organisms that ARE persons!

The largest view that I know of, for an individual creature's "totality of being", is best described in a classic Robert A. Heinlein short story, "Lifeline". Here the organism is measured in 4 dimensions, not the usual 3 --lifespan is included. But that lifespan, in the story, is also fixed and unchangeable. Thus if a healthy twenty-year-old is measured as dying five minutes from now, NOTHING is going to stop it. It made interesting fiction, of course. We have no way of making a lifespan measurement, and so we cannot know if abortion is in the immutable future of any given fetus -- we do not know that the future is immutable, either.

There is lots more to say, of course, but I'm running out of time for this session here, and will close with this remark. If "potential life" is included as part of "totatlity of being", then why isn't "potential death" also included? I've mentioned lightning striking in a few places in this Message Thread, but there are plenty of other things that Nature can do to cut life unexpectedly short, making a hash out of EXPECTATIONS for "totality of being".
 
Well...I'm not really talking about "lifespan" as the "totality of being"--and I'm not talking about "societies" as your ant example suggests....I'm talking about the "nature" of thing in question which encompasses al that the thing is, was, and will be in the physical and the philosphical sense.

The major difference between the nature of man and the nature of animals is self-will and reason--more specifically, man has the ability to extrapolate meaning from the abstract as well as postulate possibilities and can chose to act or not act based on individual beliefs.


I think that fits your "specialness" criteria--and I think the nature of man is the reason why abortion is the killing of a human "person."
 
Last edited:
FutureIncoming said:
If "potential life" is included as part of "totality of being", then why isn't "potential death" also included? I've mentioned lightning striking in a few places in this Message Thread, but there are plenty of other things that Nature can do to cut life unexpectedly short, making a hash out of EXPECTATIONS for "totality of being".

Again...I said nothing of "potentiality" of anything. Totality of being is the nature of the species from it conception to its physical end and beyond. In the temporal existence we can only measure the nature of man in the temporal world--so I'll leave the rest alone....

Every human--at all stages of development and despite physical/mental limitations participates in the nature of man by reason of his being a member of the species.



You asked what argument for personhood could be "Universally applicable and accurate, regardless of physical nature, to distinguish people from mere animals"--my answer is the "nature" of man--more specifically, self-will and reason as I explained above.
 
Last edited:
[Quote = Futureincoming]
The definition of "person" is at the very heart of the abortion debate. If all the unborn can be proved to qualify as people, then killing them is murder and abortions must cease -- while if all the unborn can be proved to be not-people, then killing them is not murder and abortions can continue. OR, if at some point during pregnancy, it can be proved that "this is when personhood begins for humans", then prior to that point abortions can be allowed, but forbidden after that point. THE WHOLE DEBATE CAN END, with such proof available (nobody still argues that the Sun goes around the Earth, do they?). However, for any of the above possilbilties to be proved, an absolutely rigorous and accurate and universally applicable definition of "person" is essential. Arbitrary claims are worthless.
Consider, first, the factual biological determination that, at any stage of development, the product of conception is living and human. There has never been shown any medical or scientific proof to the contrary, has there?

So what is the debate really about? For the past number of ‘pages’ it has been not about whether the product of conception is alive and human, but rather the quality of the life and the degree of humanity of the entity which occupies a mother’s womb.

I submit that no qualifiers may be correctly attached to life. Natural human life is an absolute. Either it exists or it does not exist. Humanity does not come in degrees. It, too, is an absolute.

The idea of conferring personhood upon a human being implies that natural human life is simply subject to a qualifying license which may be awarded or withheld on some prejudiced basis. It assumes that men are free to ignore all of the biological facts of the question and substitute, instead, their mere opinions.

This, of course, is akin to the wise men of old who were certain that the earth was the center of the universe.

In 1973, the wise men understood there was a possibility they were mistaken and purposely left open the door for review of their “opinion” at some future date. Today, the wise men are cowardly; knowing full well that the 1973 error has been proved to be just that by the scientific advances which have occurred in the interim, but lacking the spine to do what they know is correct, they hide behind the façade of “settled law”.

Fortunately for the slaves in this country, there was steel in the spines of politicians in the mid-eighteen hundreds.
 
From Message #387 in this Thread:
Fantasea quoted:
"""
Fantasea wrote: "My sole claim is the biological fact that the product of conception is a living, growing, developing, unborn human child.
FutureIncoming replies: "I do not dispute THAT statement at all, EXCEPT for the hypocrisy associated with improperly including the word "child".
"""

Then Fantasea wrote: "I have previously shown you evidence that at the legislatures of at least twenty states plus the federal government have codified the existence of the unborn child. Since you choose to ignore this, any hypocrisy regarding unborn children is solely yours.
===============

Well, in Message #203, Fantasea wrote: "Everything needed to carry the zygote forward to natural death in old age is present at conception. All that is necessary to ensure its progress is nourishment and shelter. The same necessities are required both before birth and after birth throughout the remainder of life."

And in Message #405, Fantasea wrote: "Consider, first, the factual biological determination that, at any stage of development, the product of conception is living and human. There has never been shown any medical or scientific proof to the contrary, has there?"

The preceding two examples indicate that Fantasea is willing to communicate about scientific/biological things using appropriate scientific and biological terminology. Nevertheless, in Message #211, Fantasea quoted steen: "Didn’t we above look at correct terms as being zygote, embryo, and fetus? “Child” generally, AND CERTAINLY IN SCIENCE, is a developmental stage beginning after birth. So once again, your post carries the appearance of deliberate deception, or the revisionist linguistic hyperbole I discussed up above. So I sincerely hope that you will limit the use of such scientifically misleading terms that refers to different developmental stages than those we are talking about.

Then replying to Steen in Message #211, Fantasea wrote: "In the vernacular, expressions such as, ‘Unborn child”, “Carrying a child.”, “With child”, and many others of that ilk have been popular for centuries. Dictionaries are replete with applicable definitions."

So Fantasea is ON RECORD of wanting to interject vernacular terminology into a scientific/biological discussion. Well, in Message #267, FutureIncoming wrote: "I thank you for preferring to reference the vernacular. Because you seem to have never really thought about how the word "Being" is used in the vernacular. That is, how many times have you ever met any of these phrases (outside science fiction)? "Cat Beings", "Dog Beings", "Mouse Beings", "Frog Beings", "Grasshopper Beings".... Do you admit that in the vernacular, the word "Being" is reserved for creatures that have MINDS? ("Alien Beings", "Intelligent Beings", "Sentient Beings"....) By your own preference for the vernacular, therefore, the zygote, embryo or young fetus cannot qualify as a human being. It is a perfectly human animal body only, "empty" until it acquires a MIND (3). ONLY THEN can it deserve the label of "Human Being", per your own preference for the vernacular!!!"

But in Message #296, Fantasea REJECTS that vernacular word/meaning, preferring to present a dictionary definition: "Merriam Webster’s puts it this way.
Main Entry: [1]be•ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the quality or state of having existence"

Now we can get to the overall logic.
1. A scientific discussion uses science-specific terminology for the specific reason of promoting accuracy in communications.
2. In the present case, as long as a scientific/biological discussion is intended, then the word "child" can per science-specific terminology only be applied to humans that have been born (cesarean section included). Prior to birth, terms such as "zygote", "embryo", and "fetus" must be used -- and then only in places where they specifically apply, since each is reserved for a different portion of the development process while in the womb.
3. If Fantasea wishes to depart from scientific/biological terminology, by including vernacular word-usage, then Fantasea, unless engaging in hypocrisy, cannot object to anyone else choosing to include vernacular word-usage.
4. If Fantasea wishes to object to someone else using vernacular terminology in a scientific/biological discussion, then Fantasea, unless engaging in hypocrisy, cannot by self include any vernacular terminology into the discussion.
5. THE EVIDENCE, AS QUOTED ABOVE, IS THAT FANTASEA HAS CHOSEN TO BE A HYPOCRITE.
6. The defense that Fantasea The Hypocrite presents, involving legislative terminology, is worthless. Legislative terminology is not scientific terminology, and ONLY scientific terminology is acceptably accurate in a scientific discussion.

From now until Fantasea The Hypocrite decides to formally denounce this hypocrisy regarding the vernacular, and include only scientific terminology in science-specific postings, Fantasea The Hypocrite should be referenced by All as exactly that: Fantasea The Hypocrite.
 
In Message #387, Fantasea The Hypocrite quoted: "FutureIncoming replies: "You are mistaking my efforts. I am not trying to contort any biological facts. I am discussing aspects of the notion that just because human life happens to exist, that does not mean it MATTERS, objectively. And even subjectively with respect to humans, where human life can logically be expected to matter, that does not mean it matters everywhere and all the time. So far YOU have failed to provide any evidence indicating that human life matters objectively, OR that among humans it actually matters everywhere and all the time. So far as I can see, you are claiming that certain human lives matter only because you can financially benefit from their suffering. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"

Then Fantasea The Hypocrite wrote: "Earlier, someone, perhaps you, accused me of resorting to circular logic. What you have written above goes far beyond simple circular logic. It more closely resembles a spiral staircase.

====================
But Fantasea The Hypocrite is spouting nonsense. The very first paragraph of the very first message I posted in this overall Thread (#176) was this:
"There seems to be a lot of discussion here about whether or not a fertilized human ovum or embryo or fetus should be called "alive". I suggest that that is not the correct thing to discuss. Per scientific definitions/descriptions of "Life", all of them qualify as being alive. No, the questions that should be getting debated here are "WHEN/WHY DOES IT MATTER?""

EVER SINCE THEN, I have been discussing things relevant to that question. Even the recent stuff about Personhood is relevant, simply because Persons matter to Persons while non-Persons don't matter so much.

SO, Fantasea The Hypocrite, how about providing some evidence that either (1) Human Life Matters Objectively, or (2) Human Life Matters to Humans Everywhere and All the Time.
 
In Message #387 Fantasea The Hypocrite quoted: "Fantasea wrote: "I have asked you to furnish facts from a medical or scientific source which will support your claim. You have not done so and consistently lean on the Roe v. Wade opinion."

FutureIncoming replies: "Since I have not made any claims that distort human biology, I do not need to furnish any facts in support of non-existent claims. To the extent that I have referenced Roe vs. Wade, that is simply because it IS relevant to a discussion about when human life MATTERS to humans."

Then Fantasea the Hypocrite wrote: "I take this as an admission that you are unable to furnish facts from a medical or scientific source which will support your claim."


It is an interesting question, how Fantasea The Hypocrite refers to some sort of "claim" without specifying or quoting it. Especially given the opportunity represented when I wrote, "I have not made any claims that distort human biology." Just what IS Fantasea the Hypocrite talking about?
 
personal interjection of an observation: I can understand disagreeing and providing evidence....but the litany above by FutureIncoming comes off very disingenuous IMO.


In response to me, FI said:
The definition of "person" is at the very heart of the abortion debate. If all the unborn can be proved to qualify as people, then killing them is murder and abortions must cease -- while if all the unborn can be proved to be not-people, then killing them is not murder and abortions can continue. OR, if at some point during pregnancy, it can be proved that "this is when personhood begins for humans", then prior to that point abortions can be allowed, but forbidden after that point. THE WHOLE DEBATE CAN END, with such proof available (nobody still argues that the Sun goes around the Earth, do they?). However, for any of the above possilbilties to be proved, an absolutely rigorous and accurate and universally applicable definition of "person" is essential. Arbitrary claims are worthless.
It appeared to me that an END TO THE DEBATE seemed like a goal that the discussion should work toward. However...the posts above seem more concerned with an attempted impugning of credibility and a miring in details rather than an objective and productive exchange of ideas. If the point is WINNING--then the point is not understanding and concluding the objective truth of the matter. If the goal is winning--that directly contradicts objectivity.

This is not to say FI is alone in what appears to me to be a not objective goal--I haven't read all the posts in this thread and "debate" often goes in that direction and I have been as guilty as others in doing it....It's just an observation....it really breaks down communications and productive conversation.
 
Last edited:
Re: Vergiss

fyrefighter said:
1. No, your wrong I knew that was my child the moment I found out my wife was pregnant.
2. I mean your mother had to be pro life or you wouldnt be reading this.

Have you ever had a child?

1. I bet it was a planned pregnancy, though. You formed an instantaneous psychological bond the moment you learnt of conception? Good for you! Methinks it would have been more difficult to get so attached if you were still in your junior year of high school.

2. Wrong. My mother's pro-choice. I just happened to be a planned pregnancy.

Nope, never had a child. I don't intend to do so until I want to, either.
 
Back
Top Bottom