Why is it necessarily immoral? — DingoJones
Isnt there at least a process or scenario where a discussion might take place about how far along the “baby” is and how developed it needs to be to have rights? — DingoJones
The discussion - go for it. Opposing the rights of women - wrong.If there is a discussion, a debate of any kind, then how is it necessarily immoral? — DingoJones
Was the post that got your attention a rhetorical device? Consider it a grumpy response to those who think God tells us how to behave.Is this purely ground you must stand because it so soundly dispells the anti abortion position? — DingoJones
The discussion - go for it. Opposing the rights of women - wrong. — Banno
...you seem to have something else in mind. — DingoJones
At the completion of conception there is a 100% human, 100% alive, 100% unique fully human being. That is fact, and non disputable — Rank Amateur
Not really. The usual trimester arrangement - around Week 24 or 25 - will do for most purposes, using viability as the main criterion. — Banno
Not really. The usual trimester arrangement - around Week 24 or 25 - will do for most purposes, using viability as the main criterion — Banno
Isnt there at least a process or scenario where a discussion might take place about how far along the “baby” is and how developed it needs to be to have rights? — DingoJones
And so does every flap of a butterfly's wings. If you grasp this then Marquis goes out the window. If you do not grasp it....since a central premise is that abortion deprives an embryo or fetus of a "future like ours". — Rank Amateur
And so does every flap of a butterfly's wings. If you grasp this then Marquis goes out the window. If you do not grasp it.. — tim wood
His argument, then, is of the form, if a, b, c ,are true, and we assume them to be true, then x, y, z follow. This is not a mature argument, rather it is an exercise - and on the presumption that the author knows these things as well or better than you or I (Indiana is a no-joke philosophy and English school), you should wonder just what his point was. In short, I disqualify his argument for lack of substance. — tim wood
It is hard to discuss texts with people who do not read them. Had you read my post, which apparently you are referencing, you would have noted that in my opinion the form of his argument was unexceptionable. It was his uncritical acceptance of premises that is the problem. That is, "if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses on the ground" is a perfectly good argument. The trouble with it is that frogs do not have wings and they do bump their asses on the ground.would be happy to address if you wish to make an argument why you believe his conclusions do not follow - — Rank Amateur
All right then, how about the choice of schools your parents sent you to. The house you lived in, your choices of friends, or the lack of choice. The world and local economies when you grew up. The wife you chose, or didn't choose. Your choices for higher education; your choices about studying while at school. Whether you said yes or no when offered drugs. And on and on and on. Everything makes a difference. Each divergence kills worlds in favor of one world, the world of that choice. Each divergence "murders" a FOV. But I suppose I'm being flippant and thoughtless.I discard the" flap of butterfly wing defense" objection as once again flippant and thoughtless. — Rank Amateur
Agreed. Give it a try. Start with Marquis. Attempt to understand what his argument exactly is. For a start. Or not. Jump right into the abortion debate itself. I propose this as a starting point: A pregnant woman wants to have an abortion, what if any are grounds for controlling as a matter of law as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed?This issue deserves thought and reason. — Rank Amateur
a cyst is not a fetus, or an embryo, it is a cyst — Rank Amateur
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.