The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

[RileyG]

What is the appropriate response to a question based on false premises?

It wasn’t a false premise. He only asked if it was wrong to force others not to steal.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, I don't see that it sounds unconvincing to point out that one act--sex--often leads to a natural, expected consequence, which is why we assign responsibility to those engaging in it.

This is exactly the naturalistic fallacy I was talking about - moving from sometimes this happens in nature to assigning a moral value to that sometimes outcome.

 

[KCfromNC]

It wasn’t a false premise. He only asked if it was wrong to force others not to steal.

Given my post never said anything about stealing nor if it was right or wrong to force people to do things, you can understand why I didn't see the relevance.

 

[tall73]

This is exactly the naturalistic fallacy I was talking about - moving from sometimes this happens in nature to assigning a moral value to that sometimes outcome.

No. It is not assigning value merely because it is natural.

It is pointing out that responsibility is tied to participation in an act that is predictably known to lead to a given result that impacts another life because of that choice. They owe a duty to the life that they brought about, because they put that life in that situation, and that was a known possible ramification of the act. That is why both owe a duty to feed and care for the new life once born, but you are arguing to circumvent that duty through killing the new life in the womb.

 

[RileyG]

Given my post never said anything about stealing nor if it was right or wrong to force people to do things, you can understand why I didn't see the relevance.

Fair enough.

 

[Hammster]

Given my post never said anything about stealing nor if it was right or wrong to force people to do things, you can understand why I didn't see the relevance.

Says the group trying to force their desires about bodily autonomy onto other people's lives.

You seem to be against one group forcing their desires on others. Hence, my question.

 

[o_mlly]

Regarding the commission of direct abortions for convenience:

P1: Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being.
P2: The living being in its mother's womb, if left alone, can only be a human being.
Conclusion: Therefore: In ignorance of that living being's humanity, one may never kill that innocent living being.

No one so far has offered a successful argument that defeats the above syllogism.

As this is the American Political forum, the argument is not religious or moral but rational.

So, since no one can successfully invalidate this rational argument, only the pro-life advocates have a rational argument for their position.

 

[RileyG]

You seem to be against one group forcing their desires on others. Hence, my question.

Besides, it’s not about forcing desires. It’s about protecting the most innocent.

Good grief

 

[RileyG]

No. It is not assigning value merely because it is natural.

It is pointing out that responsibility is tied to participation in an act that is predictably known to lead to a given result that impacts another life because of that choice. They owe a duty to the life that they brought about, because they put that life in that situation, and that was a known possible ramification of the act. That is why both owe a duty to feed and care for the new life once born, but you are arguing to circumvent that duty through killing the new life in the womb.

Well said. Having desires does not mean you can do whatever you want. That’s not how that works.

 

[NxNW]

P1: Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being.

No one so far has offered a successful argument that defeats the above syllogism.

I did, but you ignored it. If it becomes a human being in the womb, that means it happens after conception. So you've conceded that it's not a human being from the moment of conception.

P2: The living being in its mother's womb, if left alone, can only be a human being.

It could become one someday, but since it could split into identical twice during the first few days, it can't be quantified, and therefore it's not a human beings. Human beings are distinct and quantifiable.

So, since no one can successfully invalidate this rational argument, only the pro-life advocates have a rational argument for their position.

Your false claims are refuted above.

 

[NxNW]

No. It is not assigning value merely because it is natural.

It is pointing out that responsibility is tied to participation in an act that is predictably known to lead to a given result

Driving a car can lead to injuries, too, but we don't prohibit car crash victims from getting medical treatment. At least, not yet.

that impacts another life because of that choice. They owe a duty to the life that they brought about, because they put that life in that situation, and that was a known possible ramification of the act.

Because it's not a human being, no such responsibility exists.

That is why both owe a duty to feed and care for the new life once born, but you are arguing to circumvent that duty through killing the new life in the womb.

Being alive doesn't equate to being a person.

 

[o_mlly]

I did, but you ignored it.

No, I showed that your argument was illogical.

If it becomes a human being in the womb, that means it happens after conception

Do you have verifiable scientific evidence that the living being is not human at conception?

So you've conceded that it's not a human being from the moment of conception.

No, science is ignorant on that issue. See above.

... but since it could split into identical twice during the first few days, it can't be quantified, and therefore it's not a human beings.

Are you trying to say that if we are also ignorant about the number of human beings in their mother's body that therefore those living beings cannot be human? Non sequitur error in logic.

If I cannot count the number of living beings in the car that just passed me therefore I am permitted to kill them all? Nonsense.

Your false claims are refuted above.

No, you have not invalidated the premises. Let me try to help you out.

P1: Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being.

Provide verifiable scientific evidence that the living being in the mother's body is not a human being.

P2: The living being in its mother's womb, if left alone, can only be a human being.

Provide verifiable scientific evidence that a human mother gave birth to a non-human being, like perhaps a Joey.

Conclusion: Therefore: In ignorance of that living being's humanity, one may never kill that innocent living being.

Provide a logical argument that given P1 and P2 that the conclusion as stated does not follow.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Regarding the commission of direct abortions for convenience:

P1: Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being.
P2: The living being in its mother's womb, if left alone, can only be a human being.
Conclusion: Therefore: In ignorance of that living being's humanity, one may never kill that innocent living being.

Your premises are false. This is not the domain of science. Arguments about the morality of abortion are general prohibited on this site.

 

[o_mlly]

Your premises are false.

Prove it to be so.

This is not the domain of science.

Nonsense.

Arguments about the morality of abortion are general prohibited on this site.

Kindly read the posts. The argument does not appeal to morality but only to rationality. Unless of course you believe that the wanton killing of living beings whose identity you do not know is permissible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Prove it to be so.

Nonsense.

Kindly read the posts. The argument does not appeal to morality but only to rationality. Unless of course you believe that the wanton killing of living beings whose identity you do not know is permissible.

The issue at the bottom of the moral question is "when is it a person?" That is not the province of science. Other related questions are "when does it have a soul?". Again, not a question answered by science. Your "syllogism" is nothing more than a rules trap.

 

[o_mlly]

The issue at the bottom of the moral question is "when is it a person?" ... Other related questions are "when does it have a soul?".

No, the issue is when is it human. No need to introduce new ambiguous terms to the argument.

Again, not a question answered by science.

No, science not only studies when life begins but also studies how to categorize living beings.

Your "syllogism" is nothing more than a rules trap.

No, trap. The rules of syllogism have been clearly laid out for you. I also offered some suggestions on how to invalidate the syllogism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, the issue is when is it human. No need to introduce new ambiguous terms to the argument.

The cell and the things that combined to make it are human as is the follicle on the hair on my keyboard. There is no "science" question here.

No, science not only studies when life begins but also studies how to categorize living beings.

Some scientists study the origin of life, but there is no question that there is a continuous sequence of living cells back for billions of years. (You wanted science, so you get some.) Again, no unimplanted embryo inside a human female is any other species than human unless people are doing some *very* funky things.

No, trap. The rules of syllogism have been clearly laid out for you. I also offered some suggestions on how to invalidate the syllogism.

Writing it that form does not make it a good syllogism. One may disagree with any of the premises and that is the problem on this board.

 

[o_mlly]

The cell and the things that combined to make it are human as is the follicle on the hair on my keyboard. There is no "science" question here.

You strengthen the argument then that to kill a living being with some properties that are distinctly human is unconscionable.

Some scientists study the origin of life, but there is no question that there is a continuous sequence of living cells back for billions of years.

Deflection. The validity of the argument does not depend on the "continuous sequence of living cells back for billions of years." We are only interested in the living being in the mother's body.

Again, no unimplanted embryo inside a human female is any other species than human ...

Again, you merely strengthen the argument and do not defeat it.

One may disagree with any of the premises and that is the problem on this board.

One must do more than merely disagree -- show that either of the premise is invalid.

 

[Bradskii]

P1: Science does not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being.

Let's reword this:

'We don't know exactly when a child in the home becomes an adult.'

That statement assumes three things.

1. We start with someone who isn't an adult.
2. We don't originally describe him or her as an adult. We have different terms that we use before the term adult becomes appropriate for the stage of development.
3. At some point he or she becomes an adult.

There's nothing contentious about those three statements. Now let's go back to pregnancies.

'We do not know exactly when the living being in its mother's womb becomes a human being.'

1. We start with something that isn't a human being.
2. We don't originally describe it as a human being. We have different terms that we use before the term human being becomes appropriate for the stage of development.
3. At some point it becomes a human being.

The question now is: Do you agree with item 1?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You strengthen the argument then that to kill a living being with some properties that are distinctly human is unconscionable.

No, I think you fail to understand or refuse to. I am only saying that the thing being destroyed has human DNA, so does the blood in the mosquito you just smashed on your arm. That is what science can tell us. Science isn't in the "what is a person" business.

Deflection. The validity of the argument does not depend on the "continuous sequence of living cells back for billions of years." We are only interested in the living being in the mother's body.

That the thing you are concerned about is made of living cells is not in debate. All human cells were formed by splitting an earlier cell in half, or merging two cells together. From blood cells to ova. That's what science tells us. It does not determine "personhood".

Again, you merely strengthen the argument and do not defeat it.

One must do more than merely disagree -- show that either of the premise is invalid.

You seem intentionally confused about what science can do. If your criteria for "personhood" (or "living being" as you oddly seem to insist on using here) is a heartbeat -- science can tell you when that occurs; if it is "pain detection" -- science can tell you that; if it is "sentience" -- science can tell you that; if it is "unique DNA" -- science can tell you that. What science CANNOT do is tell you what criteria you should choose, or how to apply your personal morality or theology.