The Question of Jake or John [W:35]

[FutureIncoming]

(if you insist I hunt it down because you don't recall, then it will take some time for me to do that; I think it is in the other Thread).

It appears to be #173 of the other thread.

Yup

 

[FutureIncoming]

when abortion opponents work to promote human overpopulation by banning abortion, they are in-essence saying their prejudice about humans is such that it is OK for human overpopulation to make extinct thousands of other species every year. They are Objectively wrong!

I left out an important connecting datum in there. It is a proven fact that human psychological health is improved by interactions with other species, sometimes as simple a thing as taking a walk in a park. So, by destroying thousands of species every year, human overpopulation is decreasing the variety of ways human psychological health can benefit. It should be relatively obvious that psychologically unhealthy humans don't get-along with others very well. Thus prejudice for humans over other species backfires, and is Objectively wrong.

 

[Ikari]

Oh? Then why don't you explain why the brain matters, when blastocysts don't have brains, and abortion opponents oppose the drug RU-486, which prevents implantation of the blastocyst, which in turn leads to the death of an unborn human entity?

They don't have brains, but left to nature they may develop them. Also not all abortion opponents oppose something like RU-42, some do. Most, however, will state that once implantation has occurred and the baby is growing, then it's hands off.

 

[Lursa]

It means more than you think. AND you seemed to inappropriately generalize a specific thing I was talking about. I used the word "many" in what I wrote", not "all". The "many" claims are of the same category as an unmoving Earth and lightning bolts and vitalism --they are claims about the physical world, claims that can be tested. When the tests are done done and the data utterly contradicts the claims, then either the claimants need to change their claims, or no one need pay them any more attention than is paid to the Flat Earth Society, and everyone disputing the failed claims can say that as widely and loudly as desired, that the proved-false claimants are basically spouting lies about the physical world. Calling the claims "beliefs" or "a matter of faith" has no effect whatsoever on how those claims should be believed by others, any more than any other proven lie should be believed by others.

Still wrong. Science already proves that the unborn are human. That's really all many people need to hold their beliefs on abortion. So again, it comes down to the subjective, no matter what 'facts' or 'truths' you manage to confront them with.

 

[Lursa]

dict others of their own beliefs? For example, if they believe that the unborn have souls, and it is impossible for immortal souls to exist without something like an Act of God, then such an Act requires God to be ignorant and/or stupid and/or spiteful, instead of being knowledgeable, smart, and loving.

Lots of religious beliefs contradict each other :doh And some also conflict with the science and reality people deal with all day long.

Again, you are wrong. Religion is based on faith and people will rationalize it in a million ways. People rationalized flying jets into buildings to kill people. People choose to deny themselves sex until marriage...or maybe never if they dont...based on their religion. People rationalize snake handling. Religion does not 'have to make sense,' people will interpret life to fit what they believe, rather than the other way around...for each individual it can be on a large or small scale...different for each.

 

[Lursa]

Not quite. When I talk about "brainwashed", I'm referencing a state of mind that refuses to be swayed by Objective facts. It doesn't matter what the facts are, so long as they indicate that a stated belief is flawed, and yet the mental state refuses to be swayed.

That's millions of Americans, including myself. I believe in God, altho He can not be objectively proven and you cannot prove my belief is flawed.

 

[Lursa]

Actually, there was a message a while back in which you seemed to agree that I had Objectively proved that prejudice was Objectively wrong (if you insist I hunt it down because you don't recall, then it will take some time for me to do that; I think it is in the other Thread).

No, I said that some prejudice could be based on facts that can be proven wrong, like one race being inferior to another. Some are based on beliefs that are not fact-based, like poor rural white people are lazy, calling them 'white trash.'

But obviously since we know that no race is inferior to another, and obviously since there are still racist people, even provable *facts* do not necessarily change people's beliefs or prejudices.

Thanks for the example. We cant even overcome subjective prejudices over race in this country...we still have racism...so that should be proof enough to you that all the facts in the world arent going to convince all or even most anti-abortion people with reigious/philosophical objections that they are wrong.

 

[Lursa]

I believe you should have said that the first time, instead of saying the answer was inadequate. And now so many messages have passed that I have been unable to identify-with-certainty the original question you wanted answered.

I said I didnt understand it. You asked why and I said it was inadequate...why do you think I didnt understand it?

Really? You just want to avoid it now.

 

[Lursa]

No, because the data I've presented can be verified. That's why it can be believed!

So then why didnt you 'believe it' when I wrote it, more than once....in the 2 posts I listed?

Again, your personal conclusions on this are so rigid that you truly seem unable to process any information that doesnt specifically conform to your own ways of articulationg and presenting it. You dont seem in the least open to new information...and dont even recognize that which does conform to your beliefs. :doh

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Still wrong. Science already proves that the unborn are humans. That's really all many people need to hold their beliefs on abortion. So again, it comes down to the subjective, no matter what 'facts' or 'truths' you manage to confront them with.

That's fine the pro lifers who are actually out to ban abortion, you dismantle there arguments like FI has done on his site to show there position shouldnt be taken. They can hold firmly to there "beliefs" if they so choose to if they want to withdraw to that. But, if they want to convince other people to take there position, they are going to need more than beliefs to do so.

 

[FutureIncoming]

They don't have brains, but left to nature they may develop them. Also not all abortion opponents oppose something like RU-42, some do. Most, however, will state that once implantation has occurred and the baby is growing, then it's hands off.

Okay, you are now presenting the type of idiotic anti-abortion argument in which "potential" is declared equal to the "actual". That is, "the unborn must be protected now because they have the potential to be upstanding members of society later." Therefore, by that exact same logic, you must be embalmed and buried now because you have the potential to become a corpse later (even if it takes centuries). Or, you must be taxed like a multimillionaire now, because you have the potential to win a huge lottery prize later. Do you see the idiocy of that anti-abortion argument yet?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Still wrong. Science already proves that the unborn are human. That's really all many people need to hold their beliefs on abortion. So again, it comes down to the subjective, no matter what 'facts' or 'truths' you manage to confront them with.

And science has also proved that the unborn are mere-animal organisms, and nothing more than mere-animal organisms Just like rats are mere-animal organisms. Why should "human" make any difference? Remember what I wrote about cuticle cells, each one of which is a living mere-animal human organism, and routinely get killed by the hundred during ordinary manicures and pedicures? Any abortion opponent wanting to claim that the unborn are more than mere-animal organisms needs to present some evidence for it!

 

[FutureIncoming]

That's millions of Americans, including myself. I believe in God, altho He can not be objectively proven and you cannot prove my belief is flawed.

That's fine; that is a belief about something outside the physical realm. I was only talking about testable things inside the physical realm --there are many claims made by various religions that have turned out to be false. And not even religions claim God sat down somewhere and wrote the Bible. Therefore, since humans wrote it, and since humans are known to be able to lie for their own benefit, just because the Bible claims something that can be interpreted as an excuse to ban abortion, that doesn't mean God was in-the-least involved in that Biblical claim. Religious leaders could have put words in God's mouth simply to force more future tithers to get born, thereby enriching the religious leaders. If you google for [ religion "con game" ] (the brackets represent the search box) you get more than 90,000 results. So here's a nice Question for you: "Do you think that if there was such a thing as a religion that had zero self-interest in its own perpetuation or aggrandizement, would it have a reason to oppose abortion?"

 

[Lursa]

And science has also proved that the unborn are mere-animal organisms, and nothing more than mere-animal organisms Just like rats are mere-animal organisms. Why should "human" make any difference? Remember what I wrote about cuticle cells, each one of which is a living mere-animal human organism, and routinely get killed by the hundred during ordinary manicures and pedicures? Any abortion opponent wanting to claim that the unborn are more than mere-animal organisms needs to present some evidence for it!

That's pretty much what I wrote. You demonstrate again that you do not actually process what you read. And it still does not refute what I wrote after it:

That's really all many people need to hold their beliefs on abortion. So again, it comes down to the subjective, no matter what 'facts' or 'truths' you manage to confront them with.

To these people, the "human" animal is elevated beyond others and no scientific facts will change their minds.

 

[Lursa]

That's fine; that is a belief about something outside the physical realm. I was only talking about testable things inside the physical realm --there are many claims made by various religions that have turned out to be false. And not even religions claim God sat down somewhere and wrote the Bible. Therefore, since humans wrote it, and since humans are known to be able to lie for their own benefit, just because the Bible claims something that can be interpreted as an excuse to ban abortion, that doesn't mean God was in-the-least involved in that Biblical claim. Religious leaders could have put words in God's mouth simply to force more future tithers to get born, thereby enriching the religious leaders. If you google for [ religion "con game" ] (the brackets represent the search box) you get more than 90,000 results. So here's a nice Question for you: "Do you think that if there was such a thing as a religion that had zero self-interest in its own perpetuation or aggrandizement, would it have a reason to oppose abortion?"

And I and others here have told you repeatedly that 'the physical realm' is not the only thing that many pro-life supporters base their position on.

Answer to question: yes.

 

[Lursa]

Okay, you are now presenting the type of idiotic anti-abortion argument in which "potential" is declared equal to the "actual". That is, "the unborn must be protected now because they have the potential to be upstanding members of society later." Therefore, by that exact same logic, you must be embalmed and buried now because you have the potential to become a corpse later (even if it takes centuries). Or, you must be taxed like a multimillionaire now, because you have the potential to win a huge lottery prize later. Do you see the idiocy of that anti-abortion argument yet?

Since many pro-life people do not distinguish between potential and actual when it comes to a human life, your position, based on your opinion in weighting the criteria for potential and actual, will not affect their beliefs.

Factually, they can reduce it to human life, period. And they are correct. They can choose to value those states, unborn and born, potential and actual, equally, valuing each stage equally.

You are rude and arrogant to treat his valid argument (not that it's even what he personally believes) as idiotic. I just proved you are wrong, that YOUR rebuttal to that argument is only based on your opinion.

 

[Ikari]

Okay, you are now presenting the type of idiotic anti-abortion argument in which "potential" is declared equal to the "actual". That is, "the unborn must be protected now because they have the potential to be upstanding members of society later." Therefore, by that exact same logic, you must be embalmed and buried now because you have the potential to become a corpse later (even if it takes centuries). Or, you must be taxed like a multimillionaire now, because you have the potential to win a huge lottery prize later. Do you see the idiocy of that anti-abortion argument yet?

Good to see that you're argument devolves into insults when it doesn't follow your prescribed assumptions. If you want to talk about idiotic arguments, it's your emotionalized hyperbole you tried to pull with killing people and embalming them now because eventually we all die.

Try to refrain from hysterics please.

 

[joG]

They don't have brains, but left to nature they may develop them. Also not all abortion opponents oppose something like RU-42, some do. Most, however, will state that once implantation has occurred and the baby is growing, then it's hands off.

There are those that will pretend they do not understand that being human is a matter of just a period during life.

 

[Lursa]

There are those that will pretend they do not understand that being human is a matter of just a period during life.

Good luck proving that all those 'periods' are equal (physiologically, mentally, legally, morally). Or will you pretend that, factually, they are?

Otherwise, those that believe that are welcome to act accordingly on their beliefs, but not force that opinion on others against their will.

 

[Removable Mind]

Wow, what an incredible "Word Salad" in the making. Now I've seen some of the best "Word Salad Chefs" around, but there might be an Award Winning opportunity here.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Wow, what an incredible "Word Salad" in the making. Now I've seen some of the best "Word Salad Chefs" around, but there might be an Award Winning opportunity here.

What are you talking about my fellow pro choicer?

 

[Ikari]

There are those that will pretend they do not understand that being human is a matter of just a period during life.

People like to snap shot biology because it helps their arguments. "It's just a clump of cells". But we all were. We all can trace our origin story to the fertilization of the egg, the implantation in the uterus, the development. Everything we are was once that clump of cells. It's human life and human reproduction, this is known. Abortion takes that life, that's just innate to the act. A human life taken, untold probabilities ended. The developing fetus is not a parasite, and it's not some cancerous group of cells. Left to nature, it can develop into what will unequivocally be called a "person" (well personhood arguments are rather floppy, so it's not actually unequivocally, just within the context of our current society).

People make up their own minds and we draw lines in the sand in terms of morality and acceptable behavior. But I always think of my PhD adviser, he was born in CA before abortion was made illegal. He was ultimately given up for adoption, and pretty much the only thing he knows about his parents is that they were high school kids. But they gave him up for adoption, he grew up, earned a PhD doing research with Carl Wieman, had a family, etc. All that was possible because he wasn't aborted, he got a chance at life. There's no script to life and how it turns out, but so long as you're alive, there's always a chance. So I choose to err on the side of life. Death comes for us all in the end, there's no point in giving it a helping hand.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

What I've been doing is explaining various things, only to have you (and others) say, "the abortion opponents aren't going to believe that, because they are too brainwashed to believe anything other than what they have been brainwashed to believe" --or words that pretty-much amount to the same thing as saying that. But that's OK; have you ever heard of something called "deprogramming"?

It would appear FI, some pro lifers will never change there stance no matter how many times you show there arguments are flawed(which is top priority in my mind since they would then have no grounds to ban abortion). I believe the pro lifers you would be convincing the most, are those that are more open minded like I was years back and realize that your calling the arguments ignorant not the person.


I remember when I was a big fan of the SLED argument when I was pro lifer years ago and linked it to your site to see if it was any valid and it isnt.

 

[Lursa]

It would appear FI, some pro lifers will never change there stance no matter how many times you show there arguments are flawed(which is top priority in my mind since they would then have no grounds to ban abortion). I believe the pro lifers you would be convincing the most, are those that are more open minded like I was years back and realize that your calling the arguments ignorant not the person.


I remember when I was a big fan of the SLED argument when I was pro lifer years ago and linked it to your site to see if it was any valid and it isnt.

If you try to base an entire argument on science, you will never reach those with strong beliefs. Some will personally find a balance, like many pro-choice Christians do, but there are those that never will....the science does not trump their faith.

I dont worry that much about those basing their objections on personal beliefs, esp. religion, as

Oddly tho, while the OP "claims" he's got the FULL abortion debate covered, he has this gap poorly addressed and another that he has not even demonstrated he's aware of...and in many ways, it could be the most vulnerable. I dont think he even knows what it is but obviously, he has not "solved" (provided solutions) or arguments to the "full abortion debate' by any means.

 

[FutureIncoming]

No, I said that some prejudice could be based on facts that can be proven wrong, like one race being inferior to another. Some are based on beliefs that are not fact-based, like poor rural white people are lazy, calling them 'white trash.'

Then you misunderstood the breadth of application of the proof that prejudice is Objectively wrong. The rationale for prejudice is entirely irrelevant when prejudice, the action (can't be said to meaningfully exist if no action whatsoever is associated with it), is Objectively wrong.

But obviously since we know that no race is inferior to another, and obviously since there are still racist people, even provable *facts* do not necessarily change people's beliefs or prejudices.

Ah, but wrong actions can be punished. For example, if prejudicial actions (including promoting prejudice) were made felonies, then anyone convicted of prejudice could lose the right to vote, and by some such means abortion opponents could throughout the future blather all they wanted, utterly uselessly.

Thanks for the example. We cant even overcome subjective prejudices over race in this country...we still have racism...so that should be proof enough to you that all the facts in the world arent going to convince all or even most anti-abortion people with religious/philosophical objections that they are wrong.

If they can be rendered impotent, so what?