The Abortion Issue

[Robbie Stewart]

Let's flip this round... Have you read them all? The "burden of proof" is for you to prove they don't.

 

Jemimah 6:67 . Though shalt remove the child of God conceived under unholy law

 

I am guessing this is one of those apocryphal books you are referring to?

[Thor Buttox]

You guys are really on a hiding to nothing. You to a trying to engage in a rational argument with a fundamentalist believer in an incomplete, at best, metaphorical, book about a character that with almost mathematical certainty, doesn't exist. You are better off arguing the merits of abortion based on the sound scientific understanding of Harry Potter.

[Stretch]

I am guessing this is one of those apocryphal books you are referring to?

Exactly.. How do you know that doesn't exist in there? And what if it did? Everything you believe in is based on what someone or some group of people has decided to exclude and include.

[Escapee..]

Pretty sure it was a golden delicious...

 

All is forgiven then!

[cat-i]

And thus the burden of proof is on you to verify your statement with approved evidence, or else you will be guilty of genetic fallacy.

 

A genetic fallacy is rejecting an argument based on the source. In this case, the argument is the source, so not sure it would really be a genetic fallacy? 

 

quoted from http://www.friesian.com/genetic.htm:

There is a difference between a reason why something is believed (ratio credentis, an explanation) and a reason why something is true (ratio veritatis, a justification). Ideally the latter would be used for the former, but we do often have reasons, even good reasons, for believing things even if we do not know the reasons why they are true. But if reasons for belief are used as though they are reasons for truth, this has been recognized for most of the history of logic as an informal fallacy [1], the "genetic fallacy," in which the origin or the cause of a proposition is taken to have some bearing on its truth. It doesn't. The fallacy can take two common forms that are of interest: an ad hominem ("against the man") argument holds something to be false because of where it comes from; and an argument "from authority" (ab auctoritate) holds something to be true because of where it comes from. Both ad hominem arguments and arguments from authority can be very good reasons to believe, or not to believe, something, but they are not logical reasons why something is true

[Odinson]

I quote Peter Singer, a contemporary philosopher an abortion advocate (i.e. he is not a Christian), from his book Practical Ethics:

 

"It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.⁵"

 

You're being a bold-faced liar right now, Robbie. 

 

Singer is PRO-CHOICE. It's even on his goddam Wikipedia page: 

 

 

 

Abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide[edit]

 

Singer lecturing at Oxford University

Singer holds that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is essentially tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure.

In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.

Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"^[54]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".^[55] Singer has clarified that his "view of when life begins isn’t very different from that of opponents of abortion." He deems it not "unreasonable to hold that an individual human life begins at conception. If it doesn’t, then it begins about 14 days later, when it is no longer possible for the embryo to divide into twins or other multiples." Singer disagrees with abortion rights opponents in that he does not "think that the fact that an embryo is a living human being is sufficient to show that it is wrong to kill it." Singer wishes "to see American jurisprudence, and the national abortion debate, take up the question of which capacities a human being needs to have in order for it to be wrong to kill it" as well as "when, in the development of the early human being, these capacities are present."^[56]

[Odinson]

Pretty sure it was a golden delicious...

 

Based on a careful reading of the Scripture, it was actually a pair of plums, but the Catholic Church found the innuendo too much and got the Tippex out. 

[Andrew Steer]

Pure gold   

You're being a bold-faced liar right now, Robbie. 

 

Singer is PRO-CHOICE. It's even on his goddam Wikipedia page: 

[The Ouzo]

surely if you are intelligent enough to remember most of what you have studied in the bible and try to implement in your daily life then you should also realise that most of what is written in the scriptures was written at the time to guide the people of that time to better health, law order and peace.

[Odinson]

Also, Robbie, if you're a follower of Singer's utilitarianism ethics, then feel free to explain why you're not vegan? 

 

I'm assuming you'd then be aware of his seminal work, Animal Rights, advocating veganism on the premise of utilitarianism (the same basis for his views on abortion).   

 

If not, then you're either ethically inconsistent or you got that Singer quote off of some pro-life website without checking the source. 

[Andrew Steer]

Also, Robbie, if you're a follower of Singer's utilitarianism ethics, then feel free to explain why you're not vegan? 

 

I'm assuming you'd then be aware of his seminal work, Animal Rights, advocating veganism on the premise of utilitarianism (the same basis for his views on abortion).   

 

If not, then you're either ethically inconsistent or you got that Singer quote off of some pro-life website without checking the source. 

Ding ding ding...

 

Fact checking - there's a novel idea 

[Robbie Stewart]

Exactly.. How do you know that doesn't exist in there? And what if it did? Everything you believe in is based on what someone or some group of people has decided to exclude and include.

 

Except, it does not exist. 

 

And yes, I have in fact read the whole book. Many times. And currently, I am about half way through again.

[Robbie Stewart]

You're being a bold-faced liar right now, Robbie. 

 

Singer is PRO-CHOICE. It's even on his goddam Wikipedia page: 

 

I quoted Peter Singer himself. You quoted Wikipedia...go figure.

 

That aside, I did not say he was not pro-choice. Go read my statement again, particularly the bit where I mentioned that he was an Abortion A D V O C A T E - go look it up if the meaning of advocate evades you?

 

I am confused now...

[Robbie Stewart]

Also, Robbie, if you're a follower of Singer's utilitarianism ethics, then feel free to explain why you're not vegan? 

 

Because I've tasted cow, and I like.

[cvancoillie]

It seems to me that some of us are hiding behind bible bashing, religion ridiculing rhetoric, and avoiding taking a standpoint as to when we believe life should be protected. Here are some options, in chronological order.

1. Conception, because that is when life begins according to science.

2. Implantation, because in layman’s terms that is really when pregnancy starts.

3. Heart starts beating, which is what the USA Republican Party seem to be trying to legislate for where they have a majority.

4. Sentient life, or consciousness (ability to feel pain, awareness of impulses)( I had to google it, CBlake’s position.)

5. Viability, chance of surviving if born prematurely, which obviously would depend on the facilities available.

6. Birth

7. Only if the biological mother wants the baby to live, even if it should survive an attempted abortion. This seems to be the USA Democratic Party’s stance, trying to pass legislation allowing abortion surviving babies to be left to die if the “mother” does not want it.  

[Odinson]

I quoted Peter Singer himself. You quoted Wikipedia...go figure.

 

That aside, I did not say he was not pro-choice. Go read my statement again, particularly the bit where I mentioned that he was an Abortion A D V O C A T E - go look it up if the meaning of advocate evades you?

 

I am confused now...

 

Robbie, no point in trying to save face. Man up and admit you used a quote out of context to legitimize your position. 

 

What were you trying to prove then? Using pro-choice arguments to bolster your pro-birth position.