I've had an epiphany

[Czernobog]

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

Didn't concede that. Pointed out the value of embryos in a fertility lab. People put their life savings into that effort. That's QUITE a lot of "value". Don't appreciate you changing my comments. I also pointed out that the example is but one of a spectrum of moral tests that could be postulated about RELATIVE value of life. Many in which the single child would be the loser. Happens all the time in war. Would happen if the child was up against 1000 elderly people or handicapped. So --- the RELATIVE value matters.

If you can't get past the first thread -- maybe you didn't NEED the 2nd one..

I don't disagree, and if one of the parameters was that you were the owner of one of those embryos, that would entirely change the calculus. I don't remember making that one of the parameters. Did I do that, and forgot?

The fact that you didn't indicates the fluidity of your scenario. If you were responsible for PROTECTING those 1000 investments -- there would be a moral excuse for your actions. Maybe not a good one. But it exists. Folks would be financially and mentally harmed. And their lives changed.

You did understand my other comment that in many alternate scenarios, the child comes out the loser --- right?

Clearly you don't understand how thought experiments work. You work through the experiment with only the parameters set. You don't try to reset them in order to make them more palatable for you. I set the parameters. You're only decision is to make a choice, based only on the parameters set. Your attempt to try to cheat the scenario is not a fault my set-up. It only demonstrates your disinclination to d3eal with the scenario that was set, presumably because you don't like what it reveals about your moral calculus.

Way ahead of you. I know the method. That's my life's work. The NEXT thing you do is VALIDATE those parameters by varying them. See how solid the GENERALIZATION was. Get to it...

why would I? No one has responded to the original scenario to set a baseline. Make the choice, as presented.

 

[flacaltenn]

Didn't concede that. Pointed out the value of embryos in a fertility lab. People put their life savings into that effort. That's QUITE a lot of "value". Don't appreciate you changing my comments. I also pointed out that the example is but one of a spectrum of moral tests that could be postulated about RELATIVE value of life. Many in which the single child would be the loser. Happens all the time in war. Would happen if the child was up against 1000 elderly people or handicapped. So --- the RELATIVE value matters.

If you can't get past the first thread -- maybe you didn't NEED the 2nd one..

I don't disagree, and if one of the parameters was that you were the owner of one of those embryos, that would entirely change the calculus. I don't remember making that one of the parameters. Did I do that, and forgot?

The fact that you didn't indicates the fluidity of your scenario. If you were responsible for PROTECTING those 1000 investments -- there would be a moral excuse for your actions. Maybe not a good one. But it exists. Folks would be financially and mentally harmed. And their lives changed.

You did understand my other comment that in many alternate scenarios, the child comes out the loser --- right?

Clearly you don't understand how thought experiments work. You work through the experiment with only the parameters set. You don't try to reset them in order to make them more palatable for you. I set the parameters. You're only decision is to make a choice, based only on the parameters set. Your attempt to try to cheat the scenario is not a fault my set-up. It only demonstrates your disinclination to d3eal with the scenario that was set, presumably because you don't like what it reveals about your moral calculus.

Way ahead of you. I know the method. That's my life's work. The NEXT thing you do is VALIDATE those parameters by varying them. See how solid the GENERALIZATION was. Get to it...

why would I? No one has responded to the original scenario to set a baseline. Make the choice, as presented.

Not conclusive as a generalization then.. Very rudimentary START to forming a generalization..

 

[Spare_change]

See what I mean?

You prove my own case for me.

Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.

You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

See what I mean?

You prove my own case for me.

Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.

You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Were you the least bit interested in honest and open discussion, here I am ....

You aren't. I have offered no opinion on abortion - I have only commented about your intellectual dishonesty (but then, that's a proven fact).

Honest discussion can only start where there is no dishonest false equivalency being attempted. So long as you don't go there, I'm all good.

See? Now you've done it again.

Once again, you've attempted to bound the conversation. If you are unwilling to discuss the characteristics of an issue upon which we disagree, then you are, simply, saying you're unwilling to discuss it all. Instead, you simply want to lecture. You aren't interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

You can do that - - - without me.

 

[Czernobog]

I don't disagree, and if one of the parameters was that you were the owner of one of those embryos, that would entirely change the calculus. I don't remember making that one of the parameters. Did I do that, and forgot?

The fact that you didn't indicates the fluidity of your scenario. If you were responsible for PROTECTING those 1000 investments -- there would be a moral excuse for your actions. Maybe not a good one. But it exists. Folks would be financially and mentally harmed. And their lives changed.

You did understand my other comment that in many alternate scenarios, the child comes out the loser --- right?

Clearly you don't understand how thought experiments work. You work through the experiment with only the parameters set. You don't try to reset them in order to make them more palatable for you. I set the parameters. You're only decision is to make a choice, based only on the parameters set. Your attempt to try to cheat the scenario is not a fault my set-up. It only demonstrates your disinclination to d3eal with the scenario that was set, presumably because you don't like what it reveals about your moral calculus.

Way ahead of you. I know the method. That's my life's work. The NEXT thing you do is VALIDATE those parameters by varying them. See how solid the GENERALIZATION was. Get to it...

why would I? No one has responded to the original scenario to set a baseline. Make the choice, as presented.

Not conclusive as a generalization then.. Very rudimentary START to forming a generalization..

It wasn't meant as a generalisation. It was designed to test for a very specific moral value. You keep wanting to try to find a way to avoid accepting what the scenario says about the moral value of an embryo in comparison to a child. There is nothing general about that. It isn't meant to suggest that embryos are generally valueless, or that children generally have more value than anything else. It is meant to demonstrate that an embryo compared to a child, when all else is equal, is of less moral value than a child. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Czernobog]

Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.

You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.

You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Were you the least bit interested in honest and open discussion, here I am ....

You aren't. I have offered no opinion on abortion - I have only commented about your intellectual dishonesty (but then, that's a proven fact).

Honest discussion can only start where there is no dishonest false equivalency being attempted. So long as you don't go there, I'm all good.

See? Now you've done it again.

Once again, you've attempted to bound the conversation. If you are unwilling to discuss the characteristics of an issue upon which we disagree, then you are, simply, saying you're unwilling to discuss it all. Instead, you simply want to lecture. You aren't interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

You can do that - - - without me.

Of course I am. I am trying to bound it in honesty, and reason. If you are incapable of keeping your discourse honest, and rational, I don't particularly want to engage with you, anyway. Bye.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Hello, Antifa? The 'Putin hacked the election' evidence is hidden in embryos in a clinic currently up in flames. Save them!!!"

 

[Borillar]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

I emailed your parents to help them see where they went wrong when they neglected to abort you.

Be careful, you can mention dead fetuses but not relatives.

Isn't it the same thing to the right?

 

[Indeependent]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

I emailed your parents to help them see where they went wrong when they neglected to abort you.

Be careful, you can mention dead fetuses but not relatives.

Isn't it the same thing to the right?

My post is in regards to forum rules, which hopefully will start being enforced.

 

[miketx]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

JUst go kill some babies. You'll feel better.

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

JUst go kill some babies. You'll feel better.

Why on Earth would I want to do that? I have nothing against babies. Why do you hate women?

 

[Czernobog]

"Hello, Antifa? The 'Putin hacked the election' evidence is hidden in embryos in a clinic currently up in flames. Save them!!!"

Why do you hate women?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Hello, Antifa? The 'Putin hacked the election' evidence is hidden in embryos in a clinic currently up in flames. Save them!!!"

Why do you hate women?

Why don't you make any sense?

 

[Czernobog]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

He went wrong by addressing you in a mature manner.

I generally ignore you, so I didn't notice this. But I gotta ask - so, calling someone a dumbass, and arbitrarily accusing them of discussing genocide is treating them in a "mature manner", in your mind? You and I appear to have two very different understandings of the word "mature".

 

[miketx]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

JUst go kill some babies. You'll feel better.

Why on Earth would I want to do that? I have nothing against babies. Why do you hate women?

Typical leftist cyborg.

 

[Czernobog]

"Hello, Antifa? The 'Putin hacked the election' evidence is hidden in embryos in a clinic currently up in flames. Save them!!!"

Why do you hate women?

Why don't you make any sense?

I was just wondering the same thing about you.

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

JUst go kill some babies. You'll feel better.

Why on Earth would I want to do that? I have nothing against babies. Why do you hate women?

Typical leftist cyborg.

Typical Right Wing patriarch.

 

[miketx]

I can never understand how these butchers seemingly have a need to snuff out life.

 

[Czernobog]

I can never understand how these butchers seemingly have a need to snuff out life.

This ladies and gentleman is my point personified. This is a man who has no interest in logic, reason, or even discourse. He is emotional, irrational, full of rage, and thinks that his rage, and self-righteous temper tantrums equate "morality".

 

[miketx]

I can never understand how these butchers seemingly have a need to snuff out life.

This ladies and gentleman is my point personified. This is a man who has no interest in logic, reason, or even discourse. He is emotional, irrational, full of rage, and thinks that his rage, and self-righteous temper tantrums equate "morality".

Yet you want to abort unborn children. You are more evil than A. Hitler. Keep spinning.

 

[Czernobog]

I can never understand how these butchers seemingly have a need to snuff out life.

This ladies and gentleman is my point personified. This is a man who has no interest in logic, reason, or even discourse. He is emotional, irrational, full of rage, and thinks that his rage, and self-righteous temper tantrums equate "morality".

Yet you want to abort unborn children. You are more evil than A. Hitler. Keep spinning.

No such thing as "unborn children". But, you know that. Which is why you are so angry.