• 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.

Godwin's Law Irrelevant in Rational Abortion Debate

shuamort said:
This:

Hey, it's your claim, feel free to stand by and prove it or retract it.
First, you'll have to prove that a person named Jesus said that and then prove that there was a god, then prove that he was the son of god, then prove that he actually said that. That's a lot of burden on your end. You can just claim that it's rhetoric that you enjoy, but I'm not putting any weight behind that book at all until those items are proven first.

Uhhh...we were not talking about whether Jesus existed or not...just whether steen's version of Christianity is something no genuine Christian sect subscribes to. You lumping in the idea I need to "prove" God et al...is just a transparent attempt to shift the focus. it doesn't matter what you believe to the point I made. Simply, it matters what is "fact" about the beliefs of Christian sects. Nice try though...:2wave:


Oh...and I thought for sure you were gonna ask me if I loved steen! I do. I love steen as much as I love everyone who is the image of God (including all those ZEFs he doesn't mind supporting the elimination of) and as much as I love my own life. I pray he hears that still small voice that holds the wisdom of the ages before he takes his last breath.



But he still irritates the hell out of me!
 
Last edited:
Honestly FI--it is no attempt of mine to avoid your "devistating" logic...it is that I grow tired of trying to direct you back to relevancy. Especially when you post such H.U.G.E. posts, don't bother with the quote option, and keep throwing out your opinion as if it were the decisive factor rather than your say so. I started to respond to your posts on the Hypocrites thread...and then it just got so old....I started to read the dissertation you just posted on this thread, but.....I guess I'm too lazy. Forgive me please. After running into the same-ol'-same-ol'...I couldn't make myself continue. It's not like I'm not on the board regularly....can't you mete the drivel out in small doses...I PROMISE I'll respond if the item presented wouldn't choke a horse. I guess my uppermost limit is a one-foot post. I think most people feel the same. I, myself, have posted larger posts and I think it deters careful reading. I fyou want to blame it on my laziness....I can accept that.;)



BTW...I'm very flattered that you scour the threads looking for something I may have "slipped up" on--you must think very highly of me. That is very sweet.:mrgreen:
 
Felicity said:
Uhhh...we were not talking about whether Jesus existed or not...just whether steen's version of Christianity is something no genuine Christian sect subscribes to. You lumping in the idea I need to "prove" God et al...is just a transparent attempt to shift the focus. it doesn't matter what you believe to the point I made. Simply, it matters what is "fact" about the beliefs of Christian sects. Nice try though...:2wave:
Let's see, you ignoring proving something you claimed as fact saying that it was "impossible". I'll assume you have withdrawn that claim now since you've not been able to prove it at all. Secondly, you're the one who claimed that those words were Jesus'.
Felicity said:
But I can give you Jesus' own words...
By doing that, you have built your argument on the falacy of existance of Jesus without supplying proof as elucidated by my breakdown.
 
Felicity said:
No, dear...it does not stand alone...those little verse numbers don't mean that that is a thing that can be taken out of context of the whole passage... The way you used it in the post I responded to--it seemed to say that we are not to judge at all--though what the passage really says is that if we judge in such a way, we need to be prepared to be judged by the same standard. However, as you describe above, THAT is the meaning of the passege...

Matt.7
[
We ARE to judge--plenty of scripture supports that in both old and new Testaments.--but we are to judge rightly and judiciously. That is the point.

Dear, HER statement stood alone. You're not even addressing what's been addressed.
She does NOT judge 'rightly and judiciously', she judges wholesale without forethought-lumping what she thinks is a stance of all without considering the individual positions. Then uses her 'religion' to back up her reasons. That is NOT debate. That is not being judicious. It's being a false moral snob. And THAT, dear, is MY judgement on the matter.
 
shuamort said:
Let's see, you ignoring proving something you claimed as fact saying that it was "impossible". I'll assume you have withdrawn that claim now since you've not been able to prove it at all.

So damned picky...here....

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_ethics.htm

scroll down...abortion is on the list.



Secondly, you're the one who claimed that those words were Jesus'.By doing that, you have built your argument on the falacy of existance of Jesus without supplying proof as elucidated by my breakdown.

If we're talking about Christian beliefs--and Christian means belief in Jesus Christ....what difference does it make if there's any proof for Christ...although I could supply some historical references of a man named Jesus of Nazereth...I don't think that's what you want. I think you think you just think denying Jesus is somehow relevant to denying what is believed by those who believe in Him.
 
ngdawg said:
Dear, HER statement stood alone. You're not even addressing what's been addressed.
She does NOT judge 'rightly and judiciously', she judges wholesale without forethought-lumping what she thinks is a stance of all without considering the individual positions. Then uses her 'religion' to back up her reasons. That is NOT debate. That is not being judicious. It's being a false moral snob. And THAT, dear, is MY judgement on the matter.

Well...by calling you dear I didn't mean to offend! I guess I don't know what you are referring to in your first statement. And anyway....she too will be judged by the same measure she judges others. I, for one, think the enmasse dumping on her was unwarranted. I could understand a tweak here and there, but really...I've seen it more than once...It becomes a feeding frenzy. I have been attacked in such a way as well. It's just not useful IMO.
 
Felicity said:
So damned picky...here....

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_ethics.htm

scroll down...abortion is on the list.
According to your link:
This chart compares the similarities and differences between the views of major Christian denominations ...

So, it's not covering all of the sects as you claim.



Felicity said:
If we're talking about Christian beliefs--and Christian means belief in Jesus Christ....what difference does it make if there's any proof for Christ...although I could supply some historical references of a man named Jesus of Nazereth...I don't think that's what you want. I think you think you just think denying Jesus is somehow relevant to denying what is believed by those who believe in Him.
It's both actually.
 
Felicity said:
Well...by calling you dear I didn't mean to offend! I guess I don't know what you are referring to in your first statement. And anyway....she too will be judged by the same measure she judges others. I, for one, think the enmasse dumping on her was unwarranted. I could understand a tweak here and there, but really...I've seen it more than once...It becomes a feeding frenzy. I have been attacked in such a way as well. It's just not useful IMO.

I guess we all just reach a point where we can't ignore certain things. I've been getting increasingly upset with the attitudes of certain posters (not just those here in the abortion threads, either!) all week, and last night it just kind of came to a head. And I wasn't even trying to be mean or anything, I just wanted to point out that there are certain things that pop up in doughgirl's posts that grate on the nerves and add nothing to the debate itself. :(
 
Felicity wrote: "I PROMISE I'll respond if the item presented wouldn't choke a horse."

Heh, heh, heh...from the "Hypocrites!" Thread:

Felicity quoted: "Felicity quoted: "YOUR CLAIM THAT JUST BECAUSE SOME HUMANS ARE PERSONS, ALL HUMANS MUST BE TREATED AS PERSONS, IS **EXACTLY AS IRRATIONAL** AS CLAIMING THAT JUST BECAUSE SOME HUMANS ARE TERRORISTS, ALL HUMANS MUST BE TREATED AS TERRORISTS."

--and wrote: "your restatement of my position is truncated and innacurate"

FutureIncoming replied:
+++
[Regarding inaccuracy] can you prove that? I am quite certain that I have simplified your position to its essence. You claim that a trait of the human species is personhood because some humans exhibit the traits of personhood and thus are persons. (And **I* could say that a trait of the human species is terrorism because some humans exhibit the traits of terrorism and thus are terrorists. BTW, have you never thought to compare a spoiled brat saying, "If I don't get my way, I'm going to..." to a terrorist?) You say that because the human species has personhood-traits, all members of the species should be treated as persons. In what way is your two-steps position NOT accurately equivalent to simply saying, "Just because some humans are persons, all humans must be treated as persons"?
+++
OK, there's a snippet for you. I simplified your claim by noting that if C depends on B, and if B depends on A, then C depends on A (and B may not need mentioning). MY logic is sound, but the essence of yours isn't, in exactly the same way that "Just because some humans are terrorists, all humans must be treated as terrorists." is faulty logic.
 
FutureIncoming said:
You claim that a trait of the human species is personhood because some humans exhibit the traits of personhood and thus are persons.


No. I say because the human species has within its myriad traits a rational will, the members of that species deserve their lives respected.

It has nothing to do with the function except that the function differentiates the species that have a rational will from those that don't. It is simply a yardstick for whether you're "in" or "out" when it comes to life. If you are of a species that has a rational will in its many qualities--you're in. If you are of a species that has no rational will among its traits, you're out. "In" = person. "Out" = not person. Individiuality in this definition means nothing. Functionality in this definition means nothing. Ability in this definition means nothing. Capacity of the species means EVERYTHING.

(And **I* could say that a trait of the human species is terrorism because some humans exhibit the traits of terrorism and thus are terrorists.
yeah...so...there are many things that SOME humans are and do and have the ability of that others do not. nonetheless--they are ALL HUMAN PERSONS.

BTW, have you never thought to compare a spoiled brat saying, "If I don't get my way, I'm going to..." to a terrorist?)
See...this is the stuff i don't get...sometimes they are clever or interesting...but this one I don't even get the point...terrorists are "brats?" uh...seems a bit minimalistic to me.

You say that because the human species has personhood-traits, all members of the species should be treated as persons. In what way is your two-steps position NOT accurately equivalent to simply saying, "Just because some humans are persons, all humans must be treated as persons"?
Because you don't just "treat" humans as "persons" in the universal sense--they ARE persons--ALL humans are persons. see above..
+++
OK, there's a snippet for you. I simplified your claim by noting that if C depends on B, and if B depends on A, then C depends on A (and B may not need mentioning). MY logic is sound, but the essence of yours isn't, in exactly the same way that "Just because some humans are terrorists, all humans must be treated as terrorists." is faulty logic.
No FI--it's like all terrorists are human but not all humans are terrorists is EXACTLY like all fetuses are human but not all humans are fetuses. Or even all humans are persons...but in the fatasy "future incoming", not all persons may be human if another life form is discovered to posess a rational will.


Now...I'd advise when you respond...don't list my statement and your reply and my reply to your reply and your new reply which is a reply to my reply to your ........well, you get my drift. I can folow a conversation over several posts...It's within my "abilities."
 
BTW---FI I have explained this so many times I am FLABBERGASTED you still try to float this garbage. Either you are out-right purposefully misrepresenting me, or the blinders to what my position is are so firmly affixed to your face as to blot out all rational perception. Truly--it makes you look ridiculous to any who have read our exchanges. I have not wavered and I have remained consistent in my assertions. Even those that think I'm full of crap could, if theyve read all our exchanges, probably parrot what I've been saying from sheer repetition.:roll:
 
shuamort said:
According to your link:
This chart compares the similarities and differences between the views of major Christian denominations ...

So, it's not covering all of the sects as you claim.

Darlin'...sects are smaller groups within denominations

sect ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skt)
n.
A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
A faction united by common interests or beliefs.


If a sect doesn't fit under one of those "denominations" it ain't as I put it, a "genuine Christian sect."

Oh...and I have no problem stating what "denomination" I fit under...why won't steen express his? If he came out and said what sect of Christianity he ascribes to, there would be no question here whether he is Christian and believes as Christians do, now would there?
 
Last edited:
Felicity quoted: "You claim that a trait of the human species is personhood because some humans exhibit the traits of personhood and thus are persons."

--and wrote: "No. I say because the human species has within its myriad traits a rational will, the members of that species deserve their lives respected."

AH, BUT THE **ONLY** REASON YOU CAN SAY "the human species has within its myriad traits a rational will" IS BECAUSE SOME MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN SPECIES HAVE THAT TRAIT.

You ARE on record as admitting that some humans don't exhibit the traits of personhood (such as in Message #798 of the "Hypocrites!" Thread). It therefore should be obvious even to you that if no human, not even just one, exhibited a rational will, then you could not claim that that trait was a part of the species. Which means what I wrote is TOTALLY accurate: You claim that a trait of the human species is personhood because SOME humans exhibit the traits of personhood.


Felicity also wrote: "Capacity of the species means EVERYTHING."

And since the capacity of the species includes the traits of terrorists and poisoners and slavers and rapists and arsonists and torturers and murderers and lawyers and politicians, all humans must be terrorists and poisoners and slavers and rapists and arsonists and torturers and murderers and lawyers and politicians. EXACTLY the way you conclude that because the capacity of the species includes the traits of persons, all humans must be persons. (Are you happy now, that I didn't use the phrase "treated like"?)

Your argument is indeed fatally flawed (and up-to-now in this message I even ignored the fact that you still called irrelevant "potential" by the buzzword-you-want-others-to-think-means-something-else, "capacity").

(There. I won't comment on the rest of Message #60 at this time, just to keep this message short for you.)
 
FutureIncoming said:
You claim that a trait of the human species is personhood because SOME humans exhibit the traits of personhood.
No FI--you have it a dollar short and reversed. SOME (rather, most) humans exhibit a rational will and by virtue of that fact--it is within the capacity of the species to have a rational will. That (specifically CAPACITY FOR) rational will is what I defined for you as the "universal criteria for personhood" you ask for in your "challenge." Therefore, since some humans demonstrate that the species has the capacity for a rational will--if one is a member of that species--he has the CAPACITY for a rational will.

You are still stuck on "capacity." I don't know what to tell you--it is a commonly understood term and I have defined it for you numerous times.




And since the capacity of the species includes the traits of terrorists and poisoners and slavers and rapists and arsonists and torturers and murderers and lawyers and politicians, all humans must be terrorists and poisoners and slavers and rapists and arsonists and torturers and murderers and lawyers and politicians.
No.. All humans have the capacity for those things--but not all humans "become" every one or any of those things. You have the CAPACITY of understanding these quite simple statements--but that doesn't mean you will. Nonetheless...you might...given enough time and humility for the concept to "gestate."



Your argument is indeed fatally flawed (and up-to-now in this message I even ignored the fact that you still called irrelevant "potential" by the buzzword-you-want-others-to-think-means-something-else, "capacity").
There is a difference. Your denial notwithstanding. Must I provide the definitions AGAIN???

(There. I won't comment on the rest of Message #60 at this time, just to keep this message short for you.)
:good_job:
 
Felicity did not quote: "THE **ONLY** REASON YOU CAN SAY "the human species has within its myriad traits a rational will" IS BECAUSE SOME MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN SPECIES HAVE THAT TRAIT."

Felicity quoted: "You claim that a trait of the human species is personhood because SOME humans exhibit the traits of personhood."

--and wrote: "No FI--you have it a dollar short and reversed. SOME (rather, most) humans exhibit a rational will and by virtue of that fact--it is within the capacity of the species to have a rational will.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE, THAT YOU DID NOT QUOTE. Let me parse it:
{A}SOME (rather, most) humans exhibit a rational will {B}and by virtue of that fact-- {C}it is within the capacity of the species to have a rational will.

If Part {B} = "therefore", then first {A}, therefore {C} !
If Part {B} = "because", then {C} is claimed because of {A} !

I can rewrite the first quotation of this message to more closely match your chosen phrasing:
SOME MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN SPECIES HAVE THAT TRAIT (rational will); therefore "the human species has within its myriad traits a rational will".

I DO NOT HAVE THE LOGIC BACKWARDS AT ALL. **ONLY** because some humans exhibit personhood do you claim it is a species characteristic. You just now used different words above to say EXACTLY that.

Next, TRAITS ARE TRAITS. There is no saying that some trait exists more than some other trait (they either exist or don't-exist). Persons are defined by their traits, and so also are terrorists, arsonists, murderers, etcetera. YOU are the one claiming that a trait is universal to the species because SOME humans exhibit it. **I** merely extended that claim to absurdity. And THAT is why your logic is hopelessly flawed.

(I'm ignoring the capacity thing because it is not relevant to the main issue here.)
 
Last edited:
To Felicity:
This is just to help clarify the logic.
While it might be nice to say, "some humans exhibit personhood because it is a species trait", you CANNOT say that personhood is a species trait without supporting evidence. What is the evidence? The fact that some humans exhibit personhood! THIS logic may appear circular, but it really does matter which comes first. So:
1. Traits of personhood are defined.
2. Some humans are observed to exhibit those traits.
3. It is now claimed that personhood is a species-wide characteristic,
on the basis of that evidence. If NO humans exibited personhood,
then humans cannot be claimed to possess that characteristic.
4. All humans must now be declared persons, since that characteristic
has been claimed to exist species-wide.
So.....
1. Traits of bad guys are defined.
2. Some humans are observed to exhibit those traits.
3. It is now claimed that bad-guy-ness is a species-wide characteristic,
on the basis of that evidence. If NO humans exibited bad-guy-ness,
then humans cannot be claimed to possess that characteristic.
4. All humans must now be declared bad guys, since that characteristic
has been claimed to exist species-wide.

In BOTH cases, step 3 is illogical. And there is NO OTHER WAY to reach step 4 from step 2. The net result is that NOT all humans are bad guys, AND NOT ALL HUMANS ARE PERSONS.
 
Ooops, in my last message I left out an important word that somebody is bound to complain about, so here is the fix:

"The net result is that NOT all humans are bad automatically guys, AND NOT ALL HUMANS ARE AUTOMATICALLY PERSONS.
 
Doesn't the Bible say "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? And "He without sin cast the first stone"?

Every one of us makes judgments every day don’t we? You say I judge people here……..but have they not also judged me? Did you judge me? Throughout His ministry, Jesus did not once address the question of judging to believers. It was always to those seeking to trip Him up. Repeatedly Jesus said it was the non-believers who were the "hypocrites", those who lived in glass houses and threw stones.

We have judges sitting on benches all over the country judging people, jurys judge….teachers judge students, parents judge their children, employers judge employees……..we all judge. But when it is done about personal stuff particularly sin…….people don’t like that.

"So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong..." I Kings 3:9.

"...judge your neighbor fairly...rebuke your neighbor frankly so that you will not share in his quilt." Leviticus 19:15-17

"May you be blessed for your good judgment..." I Samuel 25:33.

"Teach me knowledge and good judgment for I believe in your commands." Psalm 119:66. [The basis of all knowledge and good judgment is the moral commandment of Scripture.]

My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight; they will be life for you and an ornament to grace your neck." Proverbs 3:21, 22.


"The lips of the righteous nourish many, but fools die for lack of judgment." Proverbs 10:21.


"The wise man has eyes in his head, while the fool walks in darkness." Ecclesiacities 2:14

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are not spiritually discerned [estimated, appreciated, judged, understood]." I Corinthians 2:14.



"...so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless..." Phillipians 1:10.


"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to be judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge the angels? How much more the things of this life?" I Corinthians 6:2, 3

"But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish between good and evil." Hebrews 5:14.

"...rebuke a discerned man and he will gain knowledge." Proverbs 19:25. [See also 17:10]

"Speak up and judge fairly..." Proverbs 31:9.

"...and he will delight in the fear of the Lord. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth."
Isaiah 11:3,4

"By Myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear [from God], and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me." John 5:30.

"Stop judging by appearances, and make a right judgment." John 5:24.

"The spiritual man makes judgments about all things [examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and weighs all things], but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment [only God's]..." I Corinthians 2:15

Bottom line… It is obvious by these scriptures that God gave us all brains to decide right from wrong. We are to be fair, just, and careful while judging others, and we must remember that each of us will be judged by God with the same yardstick by which we measure others. Final judgment however, and justice for coming short of God's standard is up to Him -- not any of us.
The verse you talk about is very popular. Usually people deep in sin use it as an excuse for the sin in their life. I have used this scripture for that very same reason. No one likes to be told that what they are doing is wrong. I surely did not. But thank God in heaven that a few friends of mine pointed out things I was doing in my life that did not align to scriptures. They did it out of love They loved me enough to judge my actions. I bless them for that.
The world often takes this verse out of context and uses it to accuse Christians of being "judgmental" when they speak of sin.
Judging is a serious matter that can have powerful results. Ask any prisoner wrongfully jailed. One way or the other it can have serious and lasting effects in people’s lives. We must not hastily judge but follow the principles laid down in scriptures. God says judge with righteous judgment…(John 7:24)… by proven fact….the accuser has the right to face his accusers and judge on the basis of at least two and preferably three reliable witnesses.
These are laid out in scripture. I think some I listed back this up.

Stace said,
“But there are NUMEROUS times that you bring up God and Christianity, you bring that up nearly every other post. If you say that one need not be religious to see your side of things, then why bring it up at all
?”

I usually do not bring religion into this debate, because even though I am a Christian, I think that most people in general can see the evils of abortion without the God issue. I work for the Right to Life in my state. Many of the workers are from all faiths and one of my best friends is an atheist. It really isn’t hard to see the evils of abortion. And we all work harmoniously together towards educating people about the medical side of abortion in particular.
Most the rallies and schools and seminars we go to………we do not wear religious t-shirts, we do not cite bible verses……..we do not need too.

You ask, “If you say that one need not be religious to see your side of things, then why bring it up at all?”

You are right and most times in my work religion is not brought up. But I will say this…….I still witness whenever I think the opportunity calls for it, especially if the person brings it up first. Christ comes first in my life and my friends and family know this, particularly by my actions. I am not embarrassed to stand up for Christ anywhere or at any time. I am deeply in love with Christ. I believe in the Great Commission.

I do however respect people for whatever their faith happens to be. My in-laws are Jewish, my gynecologist is Muslim, my husband is not really a believer nor is my son…my daughter is…..I love and respect all of them. I will admit at times it is hard for obvious reasons.
I am not a Bible thumping woman………..but I make my faith noticeable by my actions.
I am sorry if I come across as unfeeling towards those who condone the slaughter of the unborn by methods that are inhuman. I think it upsets me more than anything else. I think I can tolerate a non-believer better than I can tolerate someone who values the unborn as nothing.
But I have every right to judge those whose views I find as reprehensible. I encounter hundreds of people every month during my travels and I have never encountered views as cold and harsh as those on this website.

You said, “If you would be more civil to people, and not try to assume so much about them, they'd be a lot more likely to respond in kind”

Maybe this is true. But ya know………Steen and Coffee and a few others say mean and spiteful things to not only me but other pro-lifers. Have you once or any other person said to them what you have said to me? No. Why? Because your views are their views and you have a bias against those of us who are pro-life. If I went back and reread all the post by those who are pro-choice and the mean spirited things they have said, I too would have a long list.

If I have offended anyone heart I apologize for that. I have tried to attack positions and groups. This is a subject that is deeply imbedded in my heart. To be truthful, some days I can’t even get through the day because I know so many innocent children are slaughtered. Its hard sometimes for me to sit and take people who so blatantly think that the practice of abortion is nothing.

And I’ll be honest………some comments about the unborn child here are so horrendous and they have upset me so much that I can’t even see to type a response. It literally breaks my heart.

I pray for all those who are pro-choice that one day they will see the miracle of the unborn in the womb.
 
FutureIncoming said:
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE, THAT YOU DID NOT QUOTE.
It's that DAMNED way you post! You don't need to quote the SERIES...it's confusing what is new and what is old...at any rate...so you are changing the order around? Okay...I can accept the phrase as stated "THE **ONLY** REASON YOU CAN SAY "the human species has within its myriad traits a rational will" IS BECAUSE SOME MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN SPECIES HAVE THAT TRAIT."


Although what your emphasis on "only" is all about, I know not.

Let me parse it:
{A}SOME (rather, most) humans exhibit a rational will {B}and by virtue of that fact-- {C}it is within the capacity of the species to have a rational will.

If Part {B} = "therefore", then first {A}, therefore {C} !
If Part {B} = "because", then {C} is claimed because of {A}

This I don't get...:confused:
"by virtue of that fact" makes C "DEPENDENT" upon A You cannot CHANGE {B} in my statement to "because" and have it mean the same thing. If I'm reading you right, the first example of your {ABCs} would read: {A}SOME (rather, most) humans exhibit a rational will {B}therefore {C} it is within the capacity of the species to have a rational will.

Ok...that I agree...but
{A}SOME (rather, most) humans exhibit a rational will {B}because {C}it is within the capacity of the species to have a rational will.

I do not agree with being entirely accurate. What the distinction is, is the direction of the logic. It is not so much wrong as it is "truncated" as I explained before. It leaves out the distinction that is required for the leap to the defining "personhood." The reason we KNOW humans have the capacity for rational will is that some in the species naturally demonstrate it. You cannot KNOW whether a species has within its capacity a rational will UNTIL AND UNLESS it is naturally demonstrated within some member of that species at some time. But when you flip that around and try to say "because we have the capacity for rational will, some of us demonstrate it," it drops that determining criteria and changes what is being asserted. That makes it not entirely accurate.

You cannot massage my assertions so that they fit into whatever you think negates the position. You cannot chip away at the clearly defined stance so that somehow you change what I said to a position you can denounce. What you want to deny and claim victory over--I did not say and you know it.
!

I can rewrite the first quotation of this message to more closely match your chosen phrasing:
SOME MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN SPECIES HAVE THAT TRAIT (rational will); therefore "the human species has within its myriad traits a rational will
Yeah...ok...that works.
I DO NOT HAVE THE LOGIC BACKWARDS AT ALL. **ONLY** because some humans exhibit personhood do you claim it is a species characteristic. You just now used different words above to say EXACTLY that.
ok...that is fine too...however, that is not what you are saying when you try to put the cart before the horse. It changes the derivative meaning of the statement.

Persons are defined by their traits,
No...they are defined by their membership in a species that demonstrates a capacity for particular traits. (gagillionth and ONE time)
 
FutureIncoming said:
While it might be nice to say, "some humans exhibit personhood because it is a species trait", .
THIS is exactly NOT what I am saying and why I have been giving you a hard time about this--see...you DO IN FACT flip it around so that you can argue something I HAVEN'T claimed!!!


See above posts.

The TWO things wrong are
#1--Personhood is not a "species trait" it is a designation resulting from the capacity for a specific trait.

#2 All members of the human species are persons...not just some who exhibit the trait that seperates the species from other species.

"rational will" and "personhood" are not interchangable features because one is a trait (rational will) and one is a designation (personhood).

Do you get it YET?
 
Felicity wrote/quoted: "I can accept the phrase as stated "THE **ONLY** REASON YOU CAN SAY "the human species has within its myriad traits a rational will" IS BECAUSE SOME MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN SPECIES HAVE THAT TRAIT."

--and added: "Although what your emphasis on "only" is all about, I know not."

That was due to the fact that you knew full well that not all humans exhibit the traits of personhood, and therefore the claim you make MUST be an extrapolation from those-that-exhibit to those-that-don't-exhibit the traits of personhood (via "species"). An extrapolation, however, is not proof....



Felicity quoted: "Let me parse it: {A}SOME (rather, most) humans exhibit a rational will {B}and by virtue of that fact-- {C}it is within the capacity of the species to have a rational will.
If Part {B} = "therefore", then first {A}, therefore {C} !
If Part {B} = "because", then {C} is claimed because of {A} !"

--and wrote: "This I don't get... "by virtue of that fact" makes C "DEPENDENT" upon A You cannot CHANGE {B} in my statement to "because" and have it mean the same thing.
{A}SOME (rather, most) humans exhibit a rational will {B}because {C}it is within the capacity of the species to have a rational will.

The phrase "by virtue of that fact" IS equivalent to "because of that fact". And so I DIDN'T write "{A} because of {C}". That's why I wrote " {C} is claimed because of {A}". THIS phrasing IS equivalent to the one in which "therefore" was used.




Felicity wrote: "I do not agree with being entirely accurate. What the distinction is, is the direction of the logic. It is not so much wrong as it is "truncated" as I explained before. It leaves out the distinction that is required for the leap to the defining "personhood." The reason we KNOW humans have the capacity for rational will is that some in the species naturally demonstrate it. You cannot KNOW whether a species has within its capacity a rational will UNTIL AND UNLESS it is naturally demonstrated within some member of that species at some time."

And that is exactly what I originally wrote in the red text, back in Message #63 (and ALSO, in a more-truncated/sweeping form, back in Message #59), which YOU then claimed was inaccurate.


Felicity also wrote: "But when you flip that around and try to say "because we have the capacity for rational will, some of us demonstrate it," it drops that determining criteria and changes what is being asserted. That makes it not entirely accurate."

Ah, but I didn't say that until Message #66, because the ONLY way you can say that all humans (which includes "some humans") have the traits of personhood is because you claim it is a species trait! Not to mention, the lead-in phrase in Message #69 "While it might be nice to say" does NOT mean I am claiming truth in the text that follows it! (I even called it circular.)





Felicity quoted: "Persons are defined by their traits,"

--and wrote: "No...they are defined by their membership in a species that demonstrates a capacity for particular traits. (gagillionth and ONE time)"

I see I didn't quite say exactly what I meant. "PERSONHOOD is defined by specific traits". Organisms that have those traits can then be called persons. It is NOT a stretch for me to have said "persons are defined by their traits", because if they didin't have the traits, you couldn't call them persons. IT IS A STRETCH for you to extrapolate from those few organisms to the entire species, not least because the first Artificial Intelligence to come into existence will have NO species. ALSO, there is the context from which you extracted that quote:
+++
Persons are defined by their traits, and so also are terrorists, arsonists, murderers, etcetera. YOU are the one claiming that a trait is universal to the species because SOME humans exhibit it. **I** merely extended that claim to absurdity.
+++
IN THAT CONTEXT, if you can extrapolate the traits of personhood from a few organisms to the whole species, then I can extrapolate the traits of criminals from a few organisms to the whole species.

WE BOTH KNOW the extrapolation doesn't work for criminals, so why should it work for personhood? IT DOESN'T, for the simple reason that "capacity" is NOT the trait. Humanity has the capacity to produce an Einstein, but not every human benefits from that capacity. YOU ARE FALSELY CLAIMING that every human automatically benefits from the species-capacity for personhood, WITH ZERO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Indeed, the evidence is against you, since so many human organisms fail during their entire lifetimes to exhibit ANY traits of personhood (all those that don't happen to implant in a womb, just for starters).



Felicity wrote: "#1--Personhood is not a "species trait" it is a designation resulting from the capacity for a specific trait."

FALSE. Personhood is a designation resulting from HAVING AND EXHIBITING SEVERAL specific traits. Stand "outside the box" for a minute and look at the human species with alien eyes. Pick a random average adult human and ask, "Is this a person?" YOU CANNOT KNOW THAT THE ANSWER IS YES UNTIL THE TRAITS OF PERSONHOOD HAVE BEEN EXHIBITED BY THAT HUMAN (which is possible only if the human actually possesses the traits, of course, and does not merely have the capacity for those traits). Therefore my second statement in this paragraph is totally true, and YOUR statement in the previous paragraph is false. Because if that random human had been a newborn instead of an adult, the alien eyes would not find any evidence to support the notion that the newborn had EITHER the capacity for, or the possession of, traits-of-personhood, and a conclusion is justifiable that the newborn is merely an animal.


Felicity wrote: "#2 All members of the human species are persons...not just some who exhibit the trait that seperates the species from other species.
"rational will" and "personhood" are not interchangable features because one is a trait (rational will) and one is a designation (personhood)."

I admit to being hasty. However, Personhood INCLUDES the trait of rational will, and I think you will find that I mostly went FROM "rational will" TO "personhood", and not the other way (I didn't use them quite as interchangeably as you imply).
 
So FI...do you see now that you are arguing that which I have never claimed. I have stead-fastly made the clarification that it is the species which determines the designation "personhood" of an individual and that the way one determines if a species includes the designation "person"--is by looking at the traits. Your claiming an inconsistancy in MY argument is false--since the inconsistancy you point to is of your own error of equating a trait with a designation. There is no point in arguing against you in a matter that is not what I presented. Do you have it clear yet?
Felicity wrote: "#1--Personhood is not a "species trait" it is a designation resulting from the capacity for a specific trait."

FALSE. Personhood is a designation resulting from HAVING AND EXHIBITING SEVERAL specific traits.

LORDY FI: you should be able to point out what is wrong in this statement quoted above...

What is it I take issue with?...come on....I know you can do it....What will I clarify in your response here that is NOT ACCURATE to the position I hold....:confused: I'll give you a hint...it has to do with a simple word you refuse to acknowledge carries a great deal of weight and a word YOU used that absolutely is something I have rejected repeatedly....



...anyone?
 
Ngdawg said, “If you are going to live by a creed, then turn around and emphatically state something that goes against it, be prepared to be called on it, ie; 'judge not', etc. I quoted, did not take out of context at all as it was a solo statement.”

You can not when interpreting the Bible take only one scripture out of the entire book to make your point. To do a deductive bible study takes investigating ALL SCRIPTURES that pertain to the subject you are looking into. I listed many verses that say judging is a right that believers can do to each other. You need to open your bible and investigate judging.
I have every right to question someones actions and words when they have to do with Christianity.

Felicity you hit the nail on the head sister when you said this….”Ask steen if he loves the Lord with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength.
Ask steen if he loves me and doughgirl as much as he loves himself.
Finally--ask steen if he loves fetuses.”

The answer I am sure would be NO to all of them. He picks and chooses what out of the “evolved” creation on earth he likes and dislikes. Notice I did not say love.

Felicity says, “Jesus is Christ. If you follow Jesus' words, or do your very best to, you are Christian.”

Its about living the Christian worldview every second of every day, not when it just suits you. A Christian is one who has accepted the free gift of salvation and has publically declared Jesus as His personal Savior. A Christian is one whom takes the Great Commission seriously. Because this is Christs command to us all.

How many here who claim to be Christian have done this?
 
do you see now that you are arguing that which I have never claimed.

FALSE. I am arguing about that which you HAVE claimed. My original description of what you have claimed, about which you are quibbling, was in Message #814 of the "Hyocrites!" Thread:
+++
YOUR CLAIM THAT JUST BECAUSE SOME HUMANS ARE PERSONS, ALL HUMANS MUST BE TREATED AS PERSONS, IS **EXACTLY AS IRRATIONAL** AS CLAIMING THAT JUST BECAUSE SOME HUMANS ARE TERRORISTS, ALL HUMANS MUST BE TREATED AS TERRORISTS.
+++
I shall expand upon the first part of that quote, to show HOW what I wrote MATCHES your claims:
1. Just because some humans are persons, you claim that the species has the capacity for humans to be persons.
2. Because the species has the capacity for humans to be persons, you claim that all humans must be persons
3. Because all humans are supposedly persons, they all must be treated like persons.

BUT THAT LOGIC DOES NOT WORK, as indicated by the second part of the above quote.




Felicity wrote: "I have stead-fastly made the clarification that it is the species which determines the designation "personhood" of an individual and that the way one determines if a species includes the designation "person"--is by looking at the traits."

YOU CANNOT SIMPLY "look at the traits of a species". YOU CAN ONLY LOOK AT THE TRAITS OF INDIVIDUALS OF THAT SPECIES. That's why when I say you are extrapolating from the individual to the species, YOU ARE. AND it is a risky thing to do. If I told you that "insects" are generally identified by the trait of having six legs (spiders are NOT categorized as insects), and then I told you that butterflies are insects, and THEN I told you that normally butterflies had more than six legs, would you immediately object, or would you immediately think about their caterpillar stage? There is (IIRR) at least one whole villiage of humans where everyone has six (sometimes seven!) fingers on each hand. Does that make it a species trait? NO, as you should well know. The ONLY thing that can reduce the risk, when an extrapolation from-individual-to-species is made, is to examine as many individuals as possible. (And then --remember the caterpillars-- be very careful about what you extrapolate.)

Only after the above is done, THEN it becomes reasonable to claim that personhood is a species-wide trait. BUT THE LOGIC STILL DOES NOT WORK BACKWARD, from the species to the individual. Having a brain is a species-wide human trait, yet a certain fraction of births are of humans having literally no brain (and they all die very soon after birth). YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO SHOW WHY DESCRIBING INDIVIDUALS FROM SPECIES-DATA SHOULD BE INFALLIBLY TRUE OF PERSONHOOD. Especially when the EVIDENCE shows lots of humans NOT having any traits of personhood!




Felicity wrote: "#1--Personhood is not a "species trait" it is a designation resulting from the capacity for a specific trait."

FutureIncoming replied: "FALSE. Personhood is a designation resulting from HAVING AND EXHIBITING SEVERAL specific traits."

Felicity responded: "LORDY FI: you should be able to point out what is wrong in this statement quoted above..."

I DID POINT OUT what was wrong with your statement quoted above. You merely failed to quote the explanation. Why don't you try that (and pay attention to it), before complaining about what I should have been able to do?
 
Sorry FI...none of that applies and it still only your opinion that the nature of the being is "irrational."


The ONLY thing that can reduce the risk, when an extrapolation from-individual-to-species is made, is to examine as many individuals as possible. (And then --remember the caterpillars-- be very careful about what you extrapolate.)
Was there every a butterfly that was not first a caterpillar? When the butterfly was a caterpillar, was it the same creature only manifesting different "traits" of the same unified whole being? Yes. The names "caterpillar" and "butterfly" are simply names given to stages in the singular creature of the Order of Lepidoptera's development.

Just as a woolly bear caterpillar is of the Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera, Family Arctiidae, Genus Isia or Pyrrharctia, Species I. isabella or P. isabella
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/butterfly/activities/printouts/Woollybear.shtml

It's the same for the adult form of this creature known as a Tiger Moth. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.e...yrrharctia_isabella.html#Pyrrharctia isabella
In fact, in most taxonomies, the caterpillar and the moth are both called "moth" even though we all instinctively think of winged creatures when we say "moth".http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moth

Likewise. The human "fetus" and the human "adult" are the same creature. No matter how you look at it they are the SAME sort of creature.

Can you name even ONE human being (let alone "person") that was not a fetus in the course of their life? Can you then, as you suggest, extrapolate that if you are a person you also were a fetus? Likewise--if you are a fetus--you are a person.

This is the end FI--you have tried very hard and have utterly failed to dent the contention that "personhood" is grounded in the nature of the species. Game was over long ago....there really is no more to say on this between you and me on this issue because I don't accept your view, and you don't even acknowledge my position as rational because YOU don't think it is. Fine. stew in it FI. No harm to me if you live in that delusion. :shrug: I'm tired of it--you offer nothing new.
 
Back
Top Bottom