Explain Your Reasoning.

[Fantasea]

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.

Wow! Over 700 words here and a few hundred more in the following two posts. Instead of arguing the merit of your position, you simply waste all of this time, energy, and bandwidth in an unproductive effort to ridicule me.

This sadly reveals a paucity of facts to support your contentions.

Kindly note the title of this thread.

 

[Felicity]

The point here is that whenever a human chooses to act in a way that promotes survival of the body, even if only by taking precautions prior to indulging in something as life-threatening as skydiving, that human is acknowledging an association between that body and the mind making the choice.

Yeah...is that supposed to be surprising—it’s just those excess words I mentioned before. Have I denied that man is a physical as well as a mental creature? No. That actually is part of my assertion.

The ability of one human to mentally place self into a situation being experienced by another human is something no animal can do.

Correct. That is that “abstract” perception that I mentioned. How does that deny the intrinsic value of the nature of man?

Isn't it logical to deduce that if human life was objectively valuable, there would have been fewer historic cases in which that value was ignored (fewer murders and more ransoms)?

No. Because man has free will.

Instead, the millenia-old slavery trade simply proved that humans value other humans subjectively, since slave auctions existed to get the most from whoever subjectively valued slaves the highest -- and it was not really the slaves that were valued, anyway, but what those slaves could do (labor) for their owners.

Funny you should mention slavery—and that slaves were valued for what they could “DO.” Isn’t that the basis for your argument that the unborn is of lesser “value” than more mature humans? It appears that you think slavery was a bad thing...how it the rationalization for slavery different from your rationalization for abortion?

The ability to put self in another's place can, like any other ability, be misused.

UmmmHmmm. Free Will.

And, by extension, the magnitude of misuse only increases as the mentaltiy of the other creature diminishes.

UmmmHmmm. Thus abortion....

When the creature has practically no mentality at all, such as a several-month's-old fetus, it would be pure folly to claim it has any understanding and valuation of its own existence.

What does the perception of an individual’s OWN WORTH have to do with his ACTUAL and OBJECTIVE value? Nothing at all. Your assertions are pure folly.

So, to whatever extent you don't want to receive ills from others, that is the extent to which you should refrain from dishing ills out.

Sounds almost Biblical!

While cultures and societies find it convenient to make arbitrary declarations such as "human life is inherently valuable" to simplify teaching humans behavior patterns that permit those cultures and societies to persist over the long haul, such simplifications always also lead to other problems, such as, in this case, giving opponents of abortion a false basis for their arguments.

This is the logical fallacy of Petitio principii . You beg the question by assuming a purpose that is not proved. I have provided evidence that you have not contradicted concerning free will and specific mental capabilities of man that demonstrate the inherent value of mankind. You have offered nothing but what would be reams of paper were this not an electronic debate.

("you will deserve to receive whatever ills you dish out"). And this leads us also to the conclusion that simply because a fetus has not the brainpower to value its own existence, that's why behaviors toward the fetus need not be the same as behaviors towards humans who do have that brainpower.

And this is the logical fallacy of the non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow on your quote preceding it. The logic that follows the quote would be that anyone having an abortion deserves to be aborted. I simply do not agree with that conclusion since I think ALL persons—despite their actions—have intrinsic value and no one “deserves” death.

 

[Fantasea]

In Message #394, Fantasea The Hypocrite puts some more effort into describing the wonders of the orange (US economy) while the text that was quoted concerned apples (a laboratory economy). Only the last part of the Message concerned itself with valuing human life, and so the initial parts of the Message (about valuing human labor) are going to be ignored here.

Fantasea The Hypocrite quoted: "...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."

Fantasea The Hypocrite wrote: "Are you arguing the case for socialism? It would seem so.

FutureIncoming replies: NOT. I am only talking about Value of Human Life, and the apparent situation in which workers are wanted to deliver for a Company, but the Company leaders don't care if the workers survive to keep delivering -- and can get away with it, by opposing abortion to ensure plenty more replacement-workers become available. There most certainly is hypocrisy here, if those Company leaders claim to oppose abortion on "value of human life" grounds.


Fantasea The Hypocrite wrote: "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?

FutureIncoming replies: The key statement there is "more than their labor is worth". HOW IS THAT DETERMINED? By the Law of Supply and Demand!!! The more laborers available to fill a position, the lower the wage can be -- and the fewer the laborers available, the more the wage will be. PERIOD. --Well, up until the point where the Company Boss decides he'd rather shovel the manure by himself, than join the bidding for limited available labor. So, as I have indicated, it is apparently a Standard Ploy of business leaders to oppose abortion while claiming "human life is valuable", simply to increase the number of laborers and to allow lower wages for jobs. There is utter hypocrisy and NO REAL VALUING OF HUMAN LIFE THERE. They are ONLY valuing human labor -- and the more of that they can make available, the cheaper it will be, per the Law of Supply and Demand.

And, oh, perhaps you have noticed, that if fewer laborers are available, then it doesn't matter so much if fewer jobs are also available?


Fantasea The Hypocrite wrote: "Anyone who believes that the minimum wage should support a family is sorely mistaken."

FutureIncoming replies: I AGREE. But then, if you think about what I've said about there being no such thing as an objective Right to Life, then you might figure that it follows I'd also say there is no such thing as an objective Right to Breed. We may argue about human subjectivity and privileges regarding Life, but I think we will argue less about the notion that Breeding is a privilege that must be earned (obviously by earning the wages to pay for it). --Unless you realize that this means that when people earning only Minimum Wage also happen to (probably unexpectedly) experience an unearned pregnancy, then that pregnancy should be aborted, heh. Unless those who want that pregnancy carried to term fork out the money to pay for it, one way or another. I can hardly wait to see your reply to this conundrum!

All of this can be answered quickly.

Those who waste the educational opportunities available to all and who do not bring a good work ethic to the marketplace are treated fairly by employers. They get what they deserve. Fortunately for them, there are governmental "safety net" programs which prevent them from starving.

Some of these folks eventually wise up, get their act together, and join the march toward prosperity. Some, unfortunately do not.

It is not the employer's responsibility to destroy his business in an attempt to cure the incurable.

 

[Fantasea]

In Message #335, Fantasea The Hypocrite 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 priviledges to the incapable than to the capable. Haven't you learned that priviledges 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."


Then Fantasea The Hypocrite 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.

I am fascinated by your bold faced attempt to swap the meaning of the word “right” for the meaning of the word “privilege”. The Declaration of Independence declares to all, the inalienable “right” to life. There is no mention of life’s being a privilege which may be accorded to some but not to others."


Please note that there are two separate items discussed by Fantasea The Hypocrite. In Message #365 FutureIncoming quoted all the prior paragraphs, and then wrote: "Regarding your first statement, you are quibbling. Complaining about the way I chose to express certain facts in no way counts as evidence that the statements are false.

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. Next, it just so happens that you are overlooking the FACT that the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Law of this Land. It's purpose was to tell England that we weren't going to pay attention to THEIR laws any more. The Constitution is OUR Law of the Land. Can you find an equivalent Right to Life statement in there?"


Please note that FutureIncoming matched Fantasea The Hypocrite item-for-item. Well, in Message #385 Fantasea The Hypocrite first quoted the first-item statement regarding quibbling, and then wrote: "It is obvious that you misunderstand the meaning of the word "quibble"."

Fantasea The Hypocrite also wrote some stuff relating to the second item, about interpretations of the Constitution, possibly because there may be no statement in the Constitution directly specifying a Right to Life (or even a statement specifying the Declaration of Independence to be relevant background material).

Well, in Messages #389 and #390, FutureIncoming split the two items into separate Messages. In #389, regarding quibbling, was this: "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."


Note that the second text-block in this Message reveals Fantasea The Hypocrite making remarks about adjectives and not the whole sentences. Also note that the second item-of-discussion, about rights and privileges, does not involve any quibbling, because concepts and not adjectives were discussed. Nevertheless, in Message #396, Fantasea The Hypocrite quoted the entirety of Message #389, and then wrote: "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?


Remembering that the two items being discussed had been divided into separate Messages, WHY is it that Fantasea The Hypocrite discussed the second item there more than the first item? FutureIncoming very specifically indicated that the quibbling ONLY involved a couple of sentences that commented on the phrase "true fact" (the first item). There was absolutely no claim of quibbling regarding the second item (concerning rights and privileges).written in ANY of Messages #365, #389 or #390. Could it be that Fantasea The Hypocrite is afraid to admit to indulging in a little quibbling? It's not like it's a crime, you know. It's just a time-wasting annoyance that doesn't promote a discussion, and therefore is merely frowned-upon.

Regarding the second-item stuff that Fantasea The Hypocrite wrote, in a place where it didn't belong, FutureIncoming will probably ignore it, since separating the items was partly done to prevent any possibly-confusing commingling of them -- and Fantasea The Hypocrite went ahead and commingled them anyway, perhaps in an attempt to avoid having to admit to being a quibbler as well as a hypocrite. Perhaps I should start using the phrase, "Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite"....

It would be helpful if you understood the vast differences between the words "right" and "privilege" and used each appropriately.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "Isn't it logical to deduce that if human life was objectively valuable, there would have been fewer historic cases in which that value was ignored (fewer murders and more ransoms)?"

Felicity wrote: "No. Because man has free will."


OK, that's logical. Especially since ransoms are more tricky, to get away with.
Still, with free will randomizing this particular situation, the value of human life becomes irrelevant. That is, it doesn't matter if it has inherent value or not. No case for or against objective-value-of-human-life can be made from this situation.



Felicity quoted: "Instead, the millenia-old slavery trade simply proved that humans value other humans subjectively, since slave auctions existed to get the most from whoever subjectively valued slaves the highest -- and it was not really the slaves that were valued, anyway, but what those slaves could do (labor) for their owners."

Felicity wrote: "Funny you should mention slavery—and that slaves were valued for what they could “DO.” Isn’t that the basis for your argument that the unborn is of lesser “value” than more mature humans? It appears that you think slavery was a bad thing...how it the rationalization for slavery different from your rationalization for abortion?"


You are mistaking the argument, which is: The fact that slaves were valued subjectively is NOT evidence that human life (degree-of-development matters not) has objective value. But it is quite obvious that if human life has only subjective value, then different humans will assign different subjective values to different humans. Some will value a fetus more than a King. Some will value neither fetus nor King. And so on.



Felicity quoted: "When the creature has practically no mentality at all, such as a several-month's-old fetus, it would be pure folly to claim it has any understanding and valuation of its own existence."

Felicity wrote: "What does the perception of an individual’s OWN WORTH have to do with his ACTUAL and OBJECTIVE value? Nothing at all. Your assertions are pure folly."


What I was talking about was "projection", the psychological tendency to imbue another with a personal characteristic. So, if one values self, and then imagines self in the situation of a fetus, it could be easy to think that the fetus values itself. THAT is the kind of misuse of of the ability to relocate one's point-of-view, which I was discussing. Regarding the relationship to objective value, what I was trying to get as is the EASE with which humans can be assigned value, even if only subjectively. If done often enough, then after a while a culture starts to think that that at least some value is always there, inherently. Wrong!



Felicity quoted: "While cultures and societies find it convenient to make arbitrary declarations such as "human life is inherently valuable" to simplify teaching humans behavior patterns that permit those cultures and societies to persist over the long haul, such simplifications always also lead to other problems, such as, in this case, giving opponents of abortion a false basis for their arguments."

Felicity wrote: "This is the logical fallacy of Petitio principii . You beg the question by assuming a purpose that is not proved."


Well, it is a fact that various cultures DO arbitrarily claim that human life has inherent value. It is also a fact that THEN they use that as a basis for certain "morality" rules, like "Thou shalt not kill a member of our culture." Now if the humans in that culture are thus discouraged from killing each other when they get into an argument, then it should be obvious that the morality rule works to encourage humans in that culture to get along with each other -- and thereby the culture has a greater chance of persisting over the long haul. QED, right? SO, as quoted, the arbitrary claim CAN indeed become the unproved basis of later debates in that culture! (I can accept that the word "false" I used in the quote is too strong; "false" is not proved just because the claim is arbitrary.)


Felicity wrote: "I have provided evidence that you have not contradicted concerning free will and specific mental capabilities of man that demonstrate the inherent value of mankind. You have offered nothing but what would be reams of paper were this not an electronic debate."

Heh. There is plenty of evidence that "certain abilities"="subjective value", and we are not disagreeing there. But you have essentially made the claim that "certain abilities"="inherent value", and there is no evidence to support that claim. (Note first paragraph of my prior post, indicating that inherent value exists not-at-all) I could claim that your claim is merely a delusion of human egotism, and finding evidence to support my claim isn't so difficult! Worse, you have extended your claim to try to assign "inherent value" to where those "certain abilities" do not exist (the young fetus), using faulty logic. --Oh, yes, I certainly have contradicted your claims!

 

[Felicity]

You are mistaking the argument, which is: The fact that slaves were valued subjectively is NOT evidence that human life (degree-of-development matters not) has objective value. But it is quite obvious that if human life has only subjective value, then different humans will assign different subjective values to different humans. Some will value a fetus more than a King. Some will value neither fetus nor King. And so on.

Please rephrase—I don’t get the point you are making.

If done often enough, then after a while a culture starts to think that that at least some value is always there, inherently. Wrong!

Can you offer proof that THAT is the case? I don’t agree.

Well, it is a fact that various cultures DO arbitrarily claim that human life has inherent value. It is also a fact that THEN they use that as a basis for certain "morality" rules, like "Thou shalt not kill a member of our culture." Now if the humans in that culture are thus discouraged from killing each other when they get into an argument, then it should be obvious that the morality rule works to encourage humans in that culture to get along with each other -- and thereby the culture has a greater chance of persisting over the long haul. QED, right? SO, as quoted, the arbitrary claim CAN indeed become the unproved basis of later debates in that culture! (I can accept that the word "false" I used in the quote is too strong; "false" is not proved just because the claim is arbitrary

While I appreciate that you recognize the “strength” of your word choice—I still submit that your conclusion is based on assumptions that it is a “causal” relationship.

Heh. There is plenty of evidence that "certain abilities"="subjective value", and we are not disagreeing there. But you have essentially made the claim that "certain abilities"="inherent value",

I offer the argument in this way for “unbelievers.” There is a certain element of faith for all beliefs—I’m just trying to make that seemingly impassable chasm more a little creek—easy enough to jump over.

and there is no evidence to support that claim. (Note first paragraph of my prior post, indicating that inherent value exists not-at-all) I could claim that your claim is merely a delusion of human egotism, and finding evidence to support my claim isn't so difficult! Worse, you have extended your claim to try to assign "inherent value" to where those "certain abilities" do not exist (the young fetus), using faulty logic. --Oh, yes, I certainly have contradicted your claims!

Again—I’m not sure what exactly you are saying...please clarify.

 

[Fantasea]

Scientific, medical, and biological facts are beyond man's capabilities to change. Man may merely discover them and use the knowledge gained to his advantage.

Political "facts" are not facts at all. They are merely the invention of men to further a political goal.

Human biology is sufficiently well understood by contributors to this thread that there is just about universal agreement that the product of conception is growing, developing, and human.

Politics are sufficiently well understood that there should be universal agreement that the term "person" and its derivitives are, as is the case with all political matters, merely the invention of man for the purpose of determining who is entitled to what.

Political definitions have no factual permanence and are subject to the ebb and flow of human desires. A few more votes in one direction or the other and a new or altered explanation emerges for a term which was formerly regarded as bulletproof.

Evidence? Pre and post Roe v. Wade political understandings of the personhood of the unborn.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I see Fantasea The Hypocrite has made no effort to either:
(1) refute the evidence, in Message #406, of Fantasea The Hypocrite's hypocrisy,
(2) present a flaw in the logic revealing Fantasea The Hypocrite to be a hypocrite, and
(3) renounce the hypocricy pointed out in (1) and (2).

In Message #417, FutureIncoming provided complete details of a quibble made by Fantasea The Hypocrite. In Message #464, Fantasea The Hypcrite quoted the entire message, and STILL tried to direct the topic to something else, much less admit the realilty of the quibbling.

It appears that Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite has chosen to support an additional hypocrisy.
(1) In Message #178, Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite wrote: "All human life is precious, valuable, and worthy of living. Natural death at any stage is a loss. The fact that there are individuals, rulers, and governments which have no respect for human life does not diminish human life."
(2) In Message #324, FutureIncoming wrote: "Finally, I have an extra-simple little hypocrisy test for you. Tell us what you think about "minimum wage" laws. If human life is really important, then shouldn't every job pay at least as much wage as is necessary for the human working that job to be able to survive to continue working that job? Just answer Yes or No, please."
(3) In Message #329, Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite answered: "NO!!!" (including the exclamation points)
(4) There is an inherent incompatiblity between claiming that human life is valuable (1), and claiming that human labor isn't valuable enough to ensure that the life that provides the labor can survive (3).
(5) Embracing both of two incompatible statements is the essence of hypocrisy.

Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite now has TWO hypocrisies to renounce, before anyone should pay serious attention to its spewings.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "You are mistaking the argument, which is: The fact that slaves were valued subjectively is NOT evidence that human life (degree-of-development matters not) has objective value. But it is quite obvious that if human life has only subjective value, then different humans will assign different subjective values to different humans. Some will value a fetus more than a King. Some will value neither fetus nor King. And so on."

Felicity wrote: "Please rephrase—I don’t get the point you are making."


The first quoted sentence was the main point: The existence of a slave trade is not evidence that human life is objectively valuable.
The rest was an observation based on the alternative, that human life is subjectively valuable (coupled with the known fact that different humans have different preferences).

==============
Felicity quoted: "If done often enough, then after a while a culture starts to think that that at least some value is always there, inherently. Wrong!"

Felicity wrote: "Can you offer proof that THAT is the case? I don’t agree."


The thing that is "done often enough" in this case is making the claim that human life is valuable (and simple laziness can cause any modifier word, such as "subjective" or "inherent", to be dropped). Humans growing up in a culture that constantly feeds them such a claim are going to question it how often? Consider other claims made by various cultures, that children grow up being exposed to. "God exists." "The humans in that group are inferior creatures." "The fundamental elements are Earth, Air, Fire, and Water." And so on. But does making a claim make the claim real? NO! Never has; never will. The realness or falseness of a claim needs to be determined objectively.

=============
FutureIncoming wrote: "...the arbitrary claim CAN indeed become the unproved basis of later debates in that culture! "

Felicity replied: "--I still submit that your conclusion is based on assumptions that it is a “causal” relationship."


Heh, it is simply the easiest way to enter a debate, to start with statements that "everybody knows are true" as the basis of an argument. Only when the basis is challenged will debaters backtrack to find objective support. (Note that the challenge might not be made, if "everybody knows it's true".) Debaters can be as lazy as anyone else; how often do you know of, that ordinary debaters prepare by analyzing every foundation-statement to see how axiomatic it is?

==============
Felicity quoted: "There is plenty of evidence that "certain abilities"="subjective value", and we are not disagreeing there. But you have essentially made the claim that "certain abilities"="inherent value""

Felicity wrote: "I offer the argument in this way for “unbelievers.” There is a certain element of faith for all beliefs—I’m just trying to make that seemingly impassable chasm more a little creek—easy enough to jump over.


Faith is not supposed to be an element of a debate. You made a claim, and the claim was challenged. If the claim cannot be supported with objective evidence, then (1) why should the claim continue to be made? --and (2) why should anyone believe the claim?

(I'm aware that if the claim massages the human ego, then some humans will choose to believe it, regardless, but that is another issue altogether.

================

Felicity quoted: "(Note first paragraph of my prior post, indicating that inherent value exists not-at-all) I could claim that your claim is merely a delusion of human egotism, and finding evidence to support my claim isn't so difficult! Worse, you have extended your claim to try to assign "inherent value" to where those "certain abilities" do not exist (the young fetus), using faulty logic. --Oh, yes, I certainly have contradicted your claims!"

Felicity wrote: "Again—I’m not sure what exactly you are saying...please clarify."


The referenced "prior post" had this first paragraph:
"One of the foundations upon which opponents of abortion build their argument is the claim that human life has inherent value that should be respected. But is that a true statement? How is "value" determined, anyway? Answer: Value is actually never an inherent quality of anything; the value of something is always defined in terms of associations with other things. ..." (Then that posting went on to offer some supporting evidence.)

Regarding a delusion of human egotism, consider that you have made the claim that "certain abilities"="inherent value". (Consider that even before you made the claim, you considered human life valuable. Did you ever consider how you originally came to that consideration? Were you told it from childhood, or did you figure it out on your own?) Consider that you made the claim at least partly because you were challenged to find a way to separate people from animals. You know full well that you specified abilities that most humans possess, so put yourself into some average Jane, and pretend this is the first time Jane encountered the claim. Will Jane be pleased that she can now see herself as being valued inherently instead of subjectively? Will Jane question that claim or echo it to others? And, finally, is Jane an average driver who thinks she is a better-than-average driver? (The statistics about THAT delusion of human ego are downright entertaining!

Regarding extending the claim of inherent value to the young fetus. As you know, the "certain abilities" specified in the main claim are not actually present in the young fetus (although some may be present in one nearing birth), simply because those abilities all require brainpower, and the young fetus is still mostly brainless, compared to even a toddler-stage human (which is when all those abilities start being detectable).

Here are the first three paragraphs of Message #450:
*****
Felicity quoted: "FALSE LOGIC. No human of young-fetus age has any abiltiy to invoke free will, if for no other reason that the brainpower to make decisions is nonexistent. Per the definitions, the ability has to be present before it can be included in an individual's total capacity."

Felicity wrote: "Free will is the experience of the "Everyman" of the human species. It is present in the "Everyman" RIGHT NOW.
It's INTRINSIC INHERENT FUNDEMENTAL ELEMENTAL....what aren't you getting?"

I am "getting" that you are still trying to claim that for example/analogy, an armless Human A has Human B's abilities to throw a fastball. That is, to the extent that free will is part of a developed mind's repertiore, you cannot claim that every undeveloped mind also has it.
*****

Per the preceding, Felicity appears to be attempting this logic:
1. "certain abilities"="inherent value".
2. Most humans have those abilities.
3. All humans are therefore inherently valuable.
4. All stages of unborn humans are included by (3), even though none of them have all those "certain abilities" of (1).

It IS faulty logic, mostly because (3) does NOT follow from (2), but also because (1) is an unsupported (to say nothing of being proved) claim.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Looks like we have a chance to test giant-squid intelligence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/s...&en=3fe80be6ccc23999&ei=5094&partner=homepage

If that one can communicate to others, none of the other baited hooks will be taken. Or the bait will be taken CAREFULLY....

 

[steen]

Wow! Over 700 words here and a few hundred more in the following two posts. Instead of arguing the merit of your position, you simply waste all of this time, energy, and bandwidth in an unproductive effort to ridicule me.

Really? proving you a dishonest hypocrite is a waste? Pointing out the truht is never a waste. And it did again provide the evidence of your lack of integrity, of your inherent cowardly mentality of refusing to owe up to your own statements.

 

[steen]

Human biology is sufficiently well understood by contributors to this thread that there is just about universal agreement that the product of conception is growing, developing, and human.

Finally, you get rid of the hyperbole and lies in your postulation to come up with a reasonably acxcurate statement. I thank you for finally listen to us when we pointed out that your previous remarks were false.

Evidence? Pre and post Roe v. Wade political understandings of the personhood of the unborn.

These were the same.

 

[Fantasea]

I see Fantasea The Hypocrite has made no effort to either:
(1) refute the evidence, in Message #406, of Fantasea The Hypocrite's hypocrisy,
(2) present a flaw in the logic revealing Fantasea The Hypocrite to be a hypocrite, and
(3) renounce the hypocricy pointed out in (1) and (2).

In Message #417, FutureIncoming provided complete details of a quibble made by Fantasea The Hypocrite. In Message #464, Fantasea The Hypcrite quoted the entire message, and STILL tried to direct the topic to something else, much less admit the realilty of the quibbling.

It appears that Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite has chosen to support an additional hypocrisy.
(1) In Message #178, Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite wrote: "All human life is precious, valuable, and worthy of living. Natural death at any stage is a loss. The fact that there are individuals, rulers, and governments which have no respect for human life does not diminish human life."
(2) In Message #324, FutureIncoming wrote: "Finally, I have an extra-simple little hypocrisy test for you. Tell us what you think about "minimum wage" laws. If human life is really important, then shouldn't every job pay at least as much wage as is necessary for the human working that job to be able to survive to continue working that job? Just answer Yes or No, please."
(3) In Message #329, Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite answered: "NO!!!" (including the exclamation points)
(4) There is an inherent incompatiblity between claiming that human life is valuable (1), and claiming that human labor isn't valuable enough to ensure that the life that provides the labor can survive (3).
(5) Embracing both of two incompatible statements is the essence of hypocrisy.

Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite now has TWO hypocrisies to renounce, before anyone should pay serious attention to its spewings.

Your attempts at logic defy logic.

 

[Felicity]

The first quoted sentence was the main point: The existence of a slave trade is not evidence that human life is objectively valuable.

Did I bring up the slave trade? No...YOU did. And I believe you were saying that it was evidence that human life is NOT objectively valuable or else we’d treat each other better.

Remember...you said, “the millenia-oldslavery trade simply proved that humans value other humans subjectively, since slave auctions existed to get the most from whoever subjectively valued slaves the highest -- and it was not really the slaves that were valued, anyway, but what those slaves could do (labor) for their owners.”

Since you see that free will is the wrench in that claim...this appears to be a wiggle out of a bad statement. Please don’t attribute your faulty logic to me...

The fact is—since you value a more mature human life more than you do a immature human life you set up a master/slave relationship between the mother and the child. You support that argument with “might makes right,” what a fetus can or cannot do compared to more mature humans, value based on resources invested...and on...all of which set up an arbitrary standard for human value. You attribute more value to the mother and thus allow the mother to have power over the very life of the child. The mother is the master and the child is the slave—and you justify it any way you see fit—because you can and the fetus doesn’t have a voice. He is at the mercy of the will of others—a slave.

Felicity quoted: "If done often enough, then after a while a culture starts to think that that at least some value is always there, inherently. Wrong!"

Felicity wrote: "Can you offer proof that THAT is the case? I don’t agree."

The thing that is "done often enough" in this case is making the claim that human life is valuable (and simple laziness can cause any modifier word, such as "subjective" or "inherent", to be dropped). Humans growing up in a culture that constantly feeds them such a claim are going to question it how often? Consider other claims made by various cultures, that children grow up being exposed to. "God exists." "The humans in that group are inferior creatures." "The fundamental elements are Earth, Air, Fire, and Water." And so on. But does making a claim make the claim real? NO! Never has; never will. The realness or falseness of a claim needs to be determined objectively.

that’s not proof...that’s not even an example. This also seems to contradict what you originally posted...it seems at first you claim “inherent” is imposed since it always seemed to be there—then you say laziness drops the modifier...I suppose both of the things you mention happen, but specific to the question of human value and personhood...how do you support your claim that the concept of inherent human value derived from cultural assumptions rather than objective rational thought? And couldn’t the inverse of that be the case just as likely? What I mean is, couldn’t simple mental laziness and self will lead cultures to devalue life because it requires one to think of others rather than themselves which contradicts selfish drives? Perhaps the whole concept of killing the life in the womb is pure laziness and self-absorption!

Heh, it is simply the easiest way to enter a debate, to start with statements that "everybody knows are true" as the basis of an argument.

no it’s more than that...you used the words “convenient” and “arbitrary”—and then drew the conclusion that ascribing value to life was to simplify teaching—and then from there you drew another conclusion that those things were done to help societies survive—and then from there you drew yet another conclusion—that such a thing leads to problems like the “pro-life” argument. The whole thing is a house of cards—and for one that is so interested in specific support for claims...I see that your arguments are getting more and more broad and more and more nebulous and les and less specific. It seems your claims are running out of gas...

Faith is not supposed to be an element of a debate. You made a claim, and the claim was challenged. If the claim cannot be supported with objective evidence, then (1) why should the claim continue to be made? --and (2) why should anyone believe the claim?.

First—take your own advice concerning “objective evidence.” Second—you keep claiming you’ve addressed the “list” as it applies to personhood...but I simply don’t see it. SEE MY NEXT POST AND DEAL WITH THAT.

 

[Felicity]

YOUR CHALLENGE:

"Define "person" to be Universally applicable and , 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.

#1 Did I define “person?”
#2 Was it Universally applicable and accurate?
#3 Was it accurate and applicable, regardless of physical nature?
#4 Did I explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too.

Yeah...I did...all of the above. In my very first post on this thread...

Post #398:

"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.

later I clarified it in the “list.”
The nature of the species must have the capacity for.....
Self-will......reasoning....comprehension of the abstract...extrapolation of information....ability to act or not act based upon self-determined reasoning.


Q: Do you know what I mean when I say “NATURE of the species?”
A: The essential characteristics and qualities....The fundamental character....the real aspect...the essence of the species—what it is—all of it’s attributes physical, mental, and metaphysical (however—for the sake of unbelievers—I ignored the “religious” side of the metaphysical arguments).

Q: Do you know what capacity means?
A: There was some debate concerning that and the difference between “capacity” and “potential.” To clarify—“capacity” represents the being as a whole whereas “potential” infers stages of development. “Capacity” refers to an innate or inherent quality whereas “potential” refers to possible quality. Innate and inherent mean that it is part of the NATURE of the species—the fundamental character of the species—the reality of what the species is—objectively.

Q: Do you understand self will?
A: The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. (dictionary.com)

Q: reasoning?
A: The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence (dictionary.com) NOTE the word “capacity”—it is an innate ability—part of the NATURE of the species.
I think from there, the rest is pretty easy...

That is the criteria for PERSONHOOD.

It is universal—if you apply those criteria to any species you can determine its personhood. You gave the example of using God as the litmus test of universality—and by this test God would be a person—and human beings would be persons. If somewhere out there in the wide world or the universe a being exists that fits those criteria—they would be persons.

SO.......
Q: ARE THERE ANY KNOWN ANIMALS THAT FIT THE CRITERIA?
A: No.

Q: DOES AN EMBRYO FIT THE CRITERIA?
A: Yes!

Q: HOW DOES AN EMBRYO FIT THE CRITERIA?
A:
1. Is it biologically an identifiable species? yes—the human species. Therefore, the nature of the represented species applies to the embryo—it is identifiably of the human species and therefore what the human species is—the embryo also is.
2. Since the nature of the species encompasses the “capacity” of the species—the embryo INNATELY and INHERENTLY posses those characteristics of the species. The nature of the human species has free will and the capacity for reasoning etc...Therefore the embryo innately has the same qualities whether or not it can effect its innate capacity. It possesses the characteristics simply by virtue of it being of the human species with a human nature.

The human species fits the criteria for personhood--therefore every human--from conception on--is a PERSON.

The only conclusion is that animals are not persons—and embryos ARE persons. Therefore, embryos deserve the protection due all persons—If it is wrong for another to deprive me of my life as a mature individual person—it is wrong for another to deprive an embryo of life as an immature individual person. Abortion is WRONG.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "Did I bring up the slave trade? No...YOU did.

Remember...you said, “the millenia-oldslavery trade simply proved that humans value other humans subjectively, since slave auctions existed to get the most from whoever subjectively valued slaves the highest -- and it was not really the slaves that were valued, anyway, but what those slaves could do (labor) for their owners.”


I certainly did bring up the slave trade, and did so because it is a known example of humans assigning value to other humans. It was part of a larger post in which ALL valuation of humans, per ACTIONS not words, has been subjective and not objective. So, where IS there any evidence for actual objective value of humans? Not even you have so far presented any.


Felicity wrote: "And I believe you were saying that it was evidence that human life is NOT objectively valuable or else we’d treat each other better.

Since you see that free will is the wrench in that claim...this appears to be a wiggle out of a bad statement. Please don’t attribute your faulty logic to me..."


I did not try to wiggle out of a bad statement; I did in fact agree with your original posting regarding free will vs valuation. And I did not afterward continue to make that faulty comment regarding human behavior. However, I might now take a moment to explain why I made the comment in the first place: A thief that steals a diamond does not usually smash it into dust. Well, even a diamond merely has subjective and not objective value. If humans had objective value, shouldn't it be obvious in some way? To everyone? Then why would bad guys prefer to smash human life over ransoming it? The answer to that, of course, is inconvenience and getting-away-with-it, which is the part I didn't originally think about.

But you might be more specific about what bad logic of mine I have attributed to you.



Felicity wrote: "The fact is—since you value a more mature human life more than you do a immature human life you set up a master/slave relationship between the mother and the child. You support that argument with “might makes right,” what a fetus can or cannot do compared to more mature humans, value based on resources invested...and on...all of which set up an arbitrary standard for human value. You attribute more value to the mother and thus allow the mother to have power over the very life of the child. The mother is the master and the child is the slave—and you justify it any way you see fit—because you can and the fetus doesn’t have a voice. He is at the mercy of the will of others—a slave."


Your use of emotional buzzwords accomplishes nothing. Slavery is a condition in which a person, who has free will, is not allowed to express it. The sufficiently immature human life doesn't have a free will in the first place, and for that reason among others, is not a person. An old-time farmer's horse was more of a slave than a young human fetus can ever be. Also, it is a simple fact that "might makes right" is the ONLY way to deal with (A) the inanimate and (B) unwilled life. Weeding a garden is exercising "might makes right". Trapping or poisoning a rat is exercising "might makes right". And using abortion as a backup plan, for when contraception fails, is "might makes right".

 

[Felicity]

Felicity wrote: "Did I bring up the slave trade? No...YOU did.

Remember...you said, “the millenia-oldslavery trade simply proved that humans value other humans subjectively, since slave auctions existed to get the most from whoever subjectively valued slaves the highest -- and it was not really the slaves that were valued, anyway, but what those slaves could do (labor) for their owners.”


I certainly did bring up the slave trade, and did so because it is a known example of humans assigning value to other humans. It was part of a larger post in which ALL valuation of humans, per ACTIONS not words, has been subjective and not objective. So, where IS there any evidence for actual objective value of humans? Not even you have so far presented any.


Felicity wrote: "And I believe you were saying that it was evidence that human life is NOT objectively valuable or else we’d treat each other better.

Since you see that free will is the wrench in that claim...this appears to be a wiggle out of a bad statement. Please don’t attribute your faulty logic to me..."


I did not try to wiggle out of a bad statement; I did in fact agree with your original posting regarding free will vs valuation. And I did not afterward continue to make that faulty comment regarding human behavior. However, I might now take a moment to explain why I made the comment in the first place: A thief that steals a diamond does not usually smash it into dust. Well, even a diamond merely has subjective and not objective value. If humans had objective value, shouldn't it be obvious in some way? To everyone? Then why would bad guys prefer to smash human life over ransoming it? The answer to that, of course, is inconvenience and getting-away-with-it, which is the part I didn't originally think about.

But you might be more specific about what bad logic of mine I have attributed to you.



Felicity wrote: "The fact is—since you value a more mature human life more than you do a immature human life you set up a master/slave relationship between the mother and the child. You support that argument with “might makes right,” what a fetus can or cannot do compared to more mature humans, value based on resources invested...and on...all of which set up an arbitrary standard for human value. You attribute more value to the mother and thus allow the mother to have power over the very life of the child. The mother is the master and the child is the slave—and you justify it any way you see fit—because you can and the fetus doesn’t have a voice. He is at the mercy of the will of others—a slave."


Your use of emotional buzzwords accomplishes nothing. Slavery is a condition in which a person, who has free will, is not allowed to express it. The sufficiently immature human life doesn't have a free will in the first place, and for that reason among others, is not a person. An old-time farmer's horse was more of a slave than a young human fetus can ever be. Also, it is a simple fact that "might makes right" is the ONLY way to deal with (A) the inanimate and (B) unwilled life. Weeding a garden is exercising "might makes right". Trapping or poisoning a rat is exercising "might makes right". And using abortion as a backup plan, for when contraception fails, is "might makes right".

Deal with my other post--this is all just nonsense when in fact humans have objective worth attested to with objective criteria. Objective reasoning requires the ability of reason. What species has that ability?

 

[Felicity]

BTW--FutureIncoming---I like how you added the qualifier "successfully" to your challenge....too funny...how OBJECTIVE are you!???

 

[steen]

Your attempts at logic defy logic.

Fantasea, you should stop talking to the mirror.

 

[FutureIncoming]

To Felicity:
I'm working on it. Details to follow when I'm done, and interruptions are making it go slow. You are not so successful as you think, but at least I modified the signature to acknowledge your attempt, as you asked about in some prior Message. The auto-signature gave me an odd problem, in than any change is applied to ALL messages that ever included the signature. What I wrote that got attached to messages, before you took on the challenge, needed to be modified carefully, see?

To Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite:
If my logic in Messages #406, #417, and #468 is so faulty, you should be able to point out specific flaws easily, instead of making an arbitrary generic claim. How about you do that, if you cannot make yourself admit the errors indicated by that logic?

 

[Felicity]

You are not so successful as you think,

Is that an example of the ESP you referenced before....? You know what I'm thinking?

Success wouldn't be "mine" anyway. The Truth is the Truth--not any creation of mine....

The auto-signature gave me an odd problem, in than any change is applied to ALL messages that ever included the signature. What I wrote that got attached to messages, before you took on the challenge, needed to be modified carefully, see?

Yeah...I know that's how it works. I just meant that "successful" is completely SUBJECTIVE. What's the point if you get to decide...?




I hope your reply is succinct. I really get exhausted slogging through your anecdotes (however interesting they may be) to find your relevent point.

 

[Fantasea]

To Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite:
If my logic in Messages #406, #417, and #468 is so faulty, you should be able to point out specific flaws easily, instead of making an arbitrary generic claim. How about you do that, if you cannot make yourself admit the errors indicated by that logic?

I am shocked. I emulate you and you complain. Now why is that?

 

[MCcorno89]

It is your sole responsibility for your actions if you want to go out and fart around, you should be smart enough to have some kind of protection. Abortion is so disgusting it's really inhumane if you think about it. That is one instance. If you get pregnant for some other reason ie rape, thenthat should be taken into consideration, and also recorded, to up the chances of finding the person who did it. I personally would put the child up for adoption after being born. No matter where you stand abortion STOPS A BEATING HEART.
[for the liberals: it means they kill them and suck them out through a vacuum :lol: ] Just thought i'd make light of the fact that you have some airheads in your party.

 

[Elektra]

It is your sole responsibility for your actions if you want to go out and fart around, you should be smart enough to have some kind of protection. Abortion is so disgusting it's really inhumane if you think about it. That is one instance. If you get pregnant for some other reason ie rape, thenthat should be taken into consideration, and also recorded, to up the chances of finding the person who did it. I personally would put the child up for adoption after being born. No matter where you stand abortion STOPS A BEATING HEART.
[for the liberals: it means they kill them and suck them out through a vacuum :lol: ] Just thought i'd make light of the fact that you have some airheads in your party.

*yawn* i suggest some more biology classes for you. It nearly doesn't matter to not even know the basics.

 

[MCcorno89]

And biology is going to do what???