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.

[tall73]

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

If you injure another by your driving they can certainly be treated, but your insurance, or you directly, will likely have to pay for that treatment, because you have responsibility for it.

In the same way the man in some jurisdictions has to pay for prenatal treatments for the new life, because he shared responsibility for bringing it about. And once the child is born both have to care for it.

And in some legislation you can be held responsible for crimes against prenatal human life.

Yet, in many jurisdictions people do not want to hold either to the responsibility that comes from their actions in producing a new life, so they allow the killing of that life.

That doesn't remove the responsibility. It just means a lot of people--including politicians--like not taking responsibility, and seek to dodge it.

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

But of course it is human, and the law even recognizes this in a number of jurisdictions by requiring a father to provide prenatal care, and holding someone responsible if they hurt a life in the womb.

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

I already noted responsibility/liability if you are at fault in an accident.

But the same applies here. The responsibility is to the third party, just as in the accident. The life that the woman and man brought into existence is that third party, and they certainly are not providing treatment if they kill it.

But some jurisdictions do require the man to provide prenatal treatment.

 

[tall73]

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.

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

is strange wording if your conclusion is:

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

You don't seem to be intending this, but your statement would, as has been pointed out by various posters, allow for terminating the life prior to it entering the womb.

I assume your argument is not pro-morning after pill, based on your arguments here, and in other threads.

Perhaps consider the following wording instead:

P1: Science does not know exactly when prenatal life becomes a human being.

 

[KCfromNC]

You seem to be against one group forcing their desires on others.

The quoted post of mine wasn't the one which started this tangent. The one which was actually being discussed was the one which showed a very quick about face from the claim of anti-abortion laws "not trying to force anything" on other people.

 

[KCfromNC]

Besides, it’s not about forcing desires.

Is this a claim that there's no desire to reduce abortion, or that anti-abortion laws don't have the force of the government behind them?

 

[Hammster]

The quoted post of mine wasn't the one which started this tangent. The one which was actually being discussed was the one which showed a very quick about face from the claim of anti-abortion laws "not trying to force anything" on other people.

I followed the argument and asked the question. But the question is legit based on what you said. I do understand, however, why you wouldn’t want to answer.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

This child/adult as an analogy for living being/human being fails on two levels.

What essentially is a child and what essentially is an adult? Having given us those properties, kindly tell us exactly when it "becomes appropriate" to label the child as an adult. The analogy fails if your reply appeals to arbitrary observations that are not always and everywhere true for every child and every adult. Temporal changes are accidentals, not essentials.

In ignorance, science may label and invent descriptive words that differentiate living beings categorically. However, those words do not change the essential nature of the living being under examination.

 

[o_mlly]

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?

If the "start" is an ununited sperm and ovum then yes that is not a living being. If the "start" is a united sperm and ovum then we know the being is a living being. However, science does not know if that living being is or is not a human being.

 

[o_mlly]

... Science isn't in the "what is a person" business.

My argument does not use the word "person" or depend upon "what is a person".

What science CANNOT do is tell you what criteria you should choose, or how to apply your personal morality or theology.

? What you seem to continue not to grasp is that my argument does not invoke any moral or theological premise.

 

[o_mlly]

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

is strange wording if your conclusion is:

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

You don't seem to be intending this, but your statement would, as has been pointed out by various posters, allow for terminating the life prior to it entering the womb.

I assume your argument is not pro-morning after pill, based on your arguments here, and in other threads.

Perhaps consider the following wording instead:

P1: Science does not know exactly when prenatal life becomes a human being.

Thanks for your comment.

The argument does proscribe killing the living being in the womb. However, proscribing one act does not in itself allow as permissible a different act. You may if you like also to proscribe when in ignorance that the killing of a living being at any time is impermissible.

 

[Bradskii]

What essentially is a child and what essentially is an adult? Having given us those properties, kindly tell us exactly when it "becomes appropriate" to label the child as an adult.

If the person is 2 years old, it is a child. We'd both agree to that. If the person is 32 years old then we'd both agree that it's an adult. We're not talking about when the person changes from one to the other. Just that there are two stages which are undeniably 'child' and 'adult'.

In ignorance, science may label and invent descriptive words that differentiate living beings categorically. However, those words do not change the essential nature of the living being under examination.

What you might personally consider the age at which you would change the term from child to adult is up to you. Not science. But there will be a change from one to the other. That is the point being made. And you'd recognise that an adult was once a child.

 

[Bradskii]

If the "start" is a united sperm and ovum then we know the being is a living being.

Yes.

However, science does not know if that living being is or is not a human being.

Science has no input on that. They do have terms for each stage of development, but they don't decide when it becomes a human being. It's up to you when you consider it to have become such as opposed to a couple of cells. And as you have said, it does become a human being. So logically it starts off not being a human being. Let's call that first stage by the scientific term: 'zygote'. The question I asked was: Do you agree with that?

 

[Hans Blaster]

My argument does not use the word "person" or depend upon "what is a person".

It should. Your premise #1 is nonsensical:

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

a living being that is human is a human being. No living being transitions into a human being. Any living being with the property "human" *is* already a human being.

BTW here is the first definition churned up by the search engine monster:

"any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being."

? What you seem to continue not to grasp is that my argument does not invoke any moral or theological premise.

That's because your argument is broken. You are trying to lay upon science things that are not in the realm of science. As I made it clear before, if you want to define a human being as a group of human cells with a unique genome and the potential to develop into an independent being, fine, go ahead. Science knows what and when this point occurs. Science is the *only* reason you know this point of development occurs.

Use the knowledge that science gives you to determine what constitutes a person, or being, or individual. Use its knowledge to determine when or if it is moral or legal to end such a being, but it is not science that makes these determination, but other areas of human activity such as philosophy or politics or theology.

Take another "fraught area". It is science that tells us the U-235 has spontaneous fissions. It science that shows how a chain reaction can occur. It is science that determines and measures the critical mass for a runaway chain reaction. It is science and its partner engineering that can craft that knowledge (with other technical knowledge) in to an explosive device or power reactor. It is science that can measure and compute the power of an explosion or the waste products made. But... it is not science that can tell us whether such a device should be constructed or used, or if the knowledge is too dangerous to propagate, etc. Those are other realms. The same kinds of realms as this abortion issue.

Science isn't going to tell you if abortion is OK or not. Both sides of this issue are aware (generally) of the basic science involved here. It is not some deep mystery that science needs to solve.

 

[o_mlly]

If the person is 2 years old, it is a child. We'd both agree to that. If the person is 32 years old then we'd both agree that it's an adult.

? The words "child" and "adult" are both descriptive of a living human being. The question before us is: Exactly when did that living being become human; not when does a child become an adult.

Once a living being becomes essentially a human being, that human being does not change its status as does the descriptive, and somewhat arbitrary, decision to label any human being as a "child" or now an "adult". And as there is no exact moment that all children become an adult, and that moment applies to all human beings for all time then the label is quite arbitrary.

Science has no input on that.

Science does study, invents and then assigns those inventions to various categories of living beings.

And, I agree as stated in P1, science remains ignorant of the moment the living being in its mother's body becomes a human being, and therefore has no input. We do know that if left alone that living being could only be a human being.

They do have terms for each stage of development, but they don't decide when it becomes a human being. It's up to you when you consider it to have become such as opposed to a couple of cells.

Logically, we still remain scientifically ignorant as to the humanity of the conceptus and, therefore also ignorant as to the humanity of the subsequent two invented categories assigned to the living being in its mother's body.

Scientific truth is a mind in conformance with reality and not vice versa, which your argument seems to be.

And as you have said, it does become a human being. So logically it starts off not being a human being. Let's call that first stage by the scientific term: 'zygote'. The question I asked was: Do you agree with that?

I did not write that I, or anyone else, knows when that living being in its mother's body "does become a human being."

As posted earlier, the sperm apart from the ovum is not a living being just as hydrogen and oxygen separately are not water. When combined, in the correct proportions, the two elements take on the properties of water. When combined, the sperm and the ovum have the properties of a living being.

 

[o_mlly]

a living being that is human is a human being. No living being transitions into a human being. Any living being with the property "human" *is* already a human being.

Again, your contention only serves to strengthen the argument that killing the unborn is unconscionable.

BTW here is the first definition churned up by the search engine monster:

"any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being."

I don't see the point you are trying to make. Can you clarify or expand?

Science knows what and when this point occurs. Science is the *only* reason you know this point of development occurs.

And exactly when does science inform us of that that "point of development" from non-human to human being occurs?

... but it is not science that makes these determination, but other areas of human activity such as philosophy or politics or theology.

Yes, science is ignorant and offers no help in that determination as specified in P1.

It is science that determines and measures the critical mass for a runaway chain reaction.

No, that would be reality that determines. Science merely discovers.

However, I see in your posts that you want to dismiss science as a field of knowledge that can offer anything to this issue. So do I.

 

[RileyG]

Is this a claim that there's no desire to reduce abortion, or that anti-abortion laws don't have the force of the government behind them?

What? No?

I have no problem with anti abortion laws because less people get hurt. Yes, the numbers of abortions should be reduced.

People should be educated about all options they have.

And before you say anything, I completely support saving the life of the mother.

 

[Bradskii]

I did not write that I, or anyone else, knows when that living being in its mother's body "does become a human being."

To become something obviously means that you are not that thing to begin with. So to become a human being you start off not being a human being in the first place. The very first stage of human life is a zygote. If that is to become a human being then the zygote cannot be a human being.

That's basic logic. I'd like you to agree to that.

 

[tall73]

If the "start" is a united sperm and ovum then we know the being is a living being. However, science does not know if that living being is or is not a human being.

As Hans Blaster pointed out, if it is a living being, and has human DNA, what else could it be?

 

[RileyG]

As Hans Blaster pointed out, if it is a living being, and has human DNA, what else could it be?

Something that is non-human doesn't suddenly become human.

It's either human or it isn't.

 

[Yttrium]

To become something obviously means that you are not that thing to begin with. So to become a human being you start off not being a human being in the first place. The very first stage of human life is a zygote. If that is to become a human being then the zygote cannot be a human being.

It seems to me that you start off with an egg cell and a sperm cell, which are not human beings, and they combine to form a human being as a zygote. Prior to zygote, not a human being. Zygote, human being. I don't think this is really important, though, since the zygote becomes an embryo before anybody starts caring about it.

 

[tall73]

To become something obviously means that you are not that thing to begin with.

Seems reasonable. But I am not sure how "human being" became the destination, or how it wasn't already the starting point at conception.