you're wasting your time and your interlocutors — tim wood

I have not abandoned the argument - i have made the argument - i am abandoning re-statement after restatement after restatement of the argument - after yet one more completely unsupported objection that to date has had nothing at all to do with the propositions or the conclusions. Which is a waste of time.

I don't feel like sharing, by far the most highly regarded, most published and most used pro life argument that many on the site were un-aware of - was a waste of time.

the argument is there - agree - disagree is a personal choice.

Settle down. I’m not outraged, I’m amused at your blunder. Read my response again, I’ve answered your objection.

You cannot win a moral argument because there is no evidence of any moral facts.

If there were moral facts and rules nature breaks them all.

It's the "says you" defense. I say abortion is wrong and you say "says you," and I say sure, and because I say it, it is so for me but not for you, and then we just sort of end things there. — Hanover

We don't have to end things there. We could further discuss our respective views.

There are actually variations throughout the whole spectrum of opinions. A small minority find murder of children moral. Infanticide is practiced in some cultures. Are you committed to infanticide being moral for me if I say it is? — Hanover

What does it mean to be committed to infanticide being moral for you if you say it is? You can think or say whatever you want, but I don't share the view that infanticide is moral.

You don't think anything goes for you, but I don't see upon what basis you can force me to adhere to your moral standards unless you think there's something inherently correct about them and that's it not just a matter of personal preference. — Hanover

I can't force you either way. I can only tell you why I judge the matter as I do and try to convince of why you should adhere to my moral standards.

All in all, your response seems to amount to what I think is the mistaken belief that just because I don't accept that morality is objective, then discussion between us can't progress. But I don't think that you've successfully made that case.

Settle down. I’m not outraged, I’m amused at your blunder. Read my response again, I’ve answered your objection. — AJJ

Ah well, shaking the tree won't get you out of it. A credit to your equanimity and sense of humor. But look. seven billion or so people on the planet. Just exactly that many acts of conception. And in every case human life begins with that act of conception. My point, and obvious I should think, is that mom and dad are both alive and human. Their "stuff" is both alive and human. Nothing not alive or not human is involved. So far as human life is concerned, nothing "begins" then. Rather it's all part of a continuous process.

Quibble about my description; refine it as you like. But against it, the claim "human life begins at conception" is revealed as an empty and ultimately vicious sophistry. Why would any good person repeat it? What's the point? We both know its point and purpose, and when exposed to light, it's ugliness and viciousness is revealed.

Well no, because as I’ve said previously in this thread, a sperm is not a human being and neither is an egg cell. Once an egg cell is fertilised a human life is conceived, by which I mean something that, if not interrupted, will become a fully developed human being. This is not the case with a sperm or an egg cell; the human embryo is precisely that, an embryonic human being.

the argument is there - agree - disagree is a personal choice. — Rank Amateur

Nope. If the argument is sound, then agreement or disagreement is not a personal choice. But it is telling and informative that you think it is. And indeed you have been repeating - but that was your choice. You were invited to defend the arguments you apparently endorsed. But all you have done is repeat. I am forced to conclude that's all you have got. But the implications are expansive. That you don't argue and defend is suggestive that you do not understand what you're saying. And so on.

You cannot win a moral argument because there is no evidence of any moral facts.

If there were moral facts and rules nature breaks them all. — Andrew4Handel

:up:
Which is actually a pretty interesting thing to observe about nature!

Well no, because as I’ve said previously in this thread, a sperm is not a human being and neither is an egg cell. Once an egg cell is fertilised a human life is conceived, by which I mean something that, if not interrupted, will become a fully developed human being. This is not the case with a sperm or an egg cell; the human embryo is precisely that, an embryonic human being. — AJJ

Sure, clearly, obviously. But that is not what you have been saying. What you have been saying is that human life begins at conception. Clearly this is false. But I wonder if you will mend your ways? And if not, then why not.

Perhaps you should quote me the remark you’re referring to.

You cannot win a moral argument because there is no evidence of any moral facts.

If there were moral facts and rules nature breaks them all. — Andrew4Handel

I am not interested in the abortion debate per se, but are there not facts in criminal cases and laws broken? It seems that that is analogous to moral laws and facts. Personally, I believe there are at least some moral truths, including that genocide is morally wrong. Act according to that maxim that you could will it to be a universal law. It seems the categorical imperative is a good guiding principle, in my opinion, and it conveys at least some moral truths. However, I differ from Kant in that context needs to be taken into account. For example, always lie to the murderer at the door.

against all the arguments I have made, with propositions and conclusions the counter arguments have been

Banno - a fetus is not a person, because it is not a person because, because of his CA argument which he is not supporting just putting it out there. - the fact that I have not made one argument based on personhood has escaped him for 6 pages. So not one of his objections on this thread has anything at all to do with my argument - which he dismisses as bad, without cause and ignores. Which it seems is a rather normal tactic.

he also occasionally make some reference to "what about the woman, which again i fully addressed - and he has so far ignored.

You on the other hand, have at least 3 times dismissed the FVOL argument on structure. such as this :

Dismissed because unargued and unsupported, merely assumed and asserted. It seems pretty clear that you can rant, but you can't argue - likely do not even understand what argument is. The FOVA depends on assuming what is in question - and that's not argument. The mistake is begging the question. I call it ranting

I have asked on each instance, and do again on the latest version, what specific part of the argument you are talking about in your dismissal, so I could possibly formulate a reply - i have yet to receive one.

Also - as I have pointed out, your first set of objections were addressed specifically in the argument - and as recently as yesterday - i gave you the best argument AGAINST the FVOL argument - whereby you took the 3 items AGAINST it and argued them back as if I was making an argument for. This with other items has lead me to believe you barely read, and if you do, do not even take the briefest of moments to understand the posts i have directed at you. You are writing you argument back in your head before you have reached the second word.

Every point you have raised to me on the issue has amounted to nothing more than an unsupported pronouncement, with a chaser of a personal barb.

Address the premises or the conclusion of the FVOL directly and with support of your counter opinion and I will address -

Address the premises or the conclusion of the use of the woman's body argument and support your counter opinion and I will address

However all future unsupported pronouncements will be regarded as one more opinion and ignored.

Human life begins from its conception, from what other point can you say it begins? — AJJ

Btw, thank you for the Hitchen's video. As I hear it, he is acknowledging that the phrase "unborn child" is meaningful. And I think everyone buys that. Certainly one minute before birth, it's a child, and it just hasn't yet been born. Most set the time of "childhood" at viability. Whether that should be adjusted is an open question. And at the other end, I think no one can argue that one minute after conception it's a child that's in there - or not reasonably anyway.

Address the premises or the conclusion of the FVOL directly and with support of your counter opinion and I will address - — Rank Amateur

Do you understand that an argument - most arguments, all that I can think of - comprise premises and a conclusion. One argues for and supports the premises, and then exhibits the conclusion as following from the premises as a matter of form, with flourishes as desired.

But with the FOV argument, the author of it states explicitly that he is simply assuming his premises are true. That means his argument as an argument is useless - there is nothing to confront.

If you do not recognize this, you have not read the paper, and you do not know what argument is.

Look. The sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. I prove it thus: premise: the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. I assume that's true. Therefore, the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns.

What? You do not throw yourself on the ground supine in the face of the power of my argument? "Address the premises or the conclusion... directly and with support of your counter opinion and I will address."

Kelly Ann Conway could hardly do better.

Why on earth would I be referring to all human cellular life there, as opposed to the life of a new human being? You’re being a pedant.

If you take a child to be the offspring of parents then of course it’s a child in there, right from the very start.

Personally, I believe there are at least some moral truths, including that genocide is morally wrong. — Noah Te Stroete

Where do these moral truths come from and what do they consist of?

They bible is not a good source because it is contradictory along with other problems

If genocide is "wrong" then how come nature freely allows it? I think unfortunately unless we can find some rule book outside of nature then what nature allow nature allows. You can't break the laws of nature.

I would like someone on here to come out and admit to being religious and try and defend the bibles morality and these two quotes that I put in a previous thread.

.................

"But most fortunate of all are those who are not yet born. For they have not seen all the evil that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 6:3

"A man may father a hundred children and live for many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he is unsatisfied with his prosperity and does not even receive a proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." Ecclesiastes 6:3

Where do these moral truths come from and what do they consist of? — Andrew4Handel

The categorical imperative comes from the power of reason. Why are you bringing the Bible up with me? It’s a Kantian argument, not a religious one.

I am bringing the bible up in the context of these debates and asking whether or not people that are opposed to abortion have a hidden religious motive beyond their allegedly "rational" arguments.

I said "I would like someone(..)" I didn't say you in particular. I just attached the comment to your post for convenience.

I see no evidence reason leads to morality and you can't derive an ought from an is.

And if reason did lead to a morality it is not clear who's position that morality would favour. At the least however you can point out flaws in peoples argumentation though and common fallacies such as appeal to emotion, shifting the goal post etc.

Is a dead person a human? At what stage after death do they stop being human?

Ethics is all about ought. If you can will that everyone ought to lie to the murderer at the door to save an innocent person, then it is a moral truth. If you can will genocide to be a universal law, then committing genocide is not morally wrong. It seems to me that there are at least some moral truths.

Do you understand that an argument - most arguments, all that I can think of - comprise premises and a conclusion. One argues for and supports the premises, and then exhibits the conclusion as following from the premises as a matter of form, with flourishes as desired. — tim wood

I see the problem - you were out of philosophy class the day they taught philosophy ( love movie quotes don't you)

One does not argue or support ones premises they are:

"A premise or premiss[a] is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words, a premise is an assumption that something is true"

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "ASSUMPTION"

The person making the argument ( marquis ) in this case declares the premise, which by definition he proposes is true. Than based on these things he believes are true he make a conclusion. This is not begging the question, this is argument.

It is incumbent on those who believe his premises or conclusions are false ( you for instance ) to say they are and why - I have been waiting.

in your example

Look. The sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. I prove it thus: premise: the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. I assume that's true. Therefore, the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. — tim wood

I dispute your proposition the the sky is full of purple flying unicorns because it is not. - Argument over.

Can't believe that is your issue. Amazed.

Why on earth would I be referring to all human cellular life there, as opposed to the life of a new human being? You’re being a pedant.

If you take a child to be the offspring of parents then of course it’s a child in there, right from the very start. — AJJ

I don't have access to your motivation, beyond what can be discovered in your words. Apparently for you the word "child" is idiosyncratically defined by you, or accepted by you, as being anything and everything that occurs at the moment of conception and following. At the very least that is a very indiscriminate and non-discriminating use of the term. Why use language that way? And if you're going to use it that way, why not make it clear when you do, that you are? The apparent answers to these questions are not flattering. It can mean you're ignorant and don't know any better, or that the misdirection is deliberate in service of a hidden agenda - well, maybe not do hidden. But by the standards of reasonable discourse, irrational. Unfortunately, irrationality is often a tactic. I think of it as a form of total war that destroys communication. In my opinion, once identified, the users of such tactics fall out of any entitlement to courtesy or reasoned consideration. Why should they have that, when they use it as a weapon?

And uh, "human cellular life." Is that not human life. Whatever it is you think begins there is human. If the cellular life isn't human, then how can the result of the meeting of those cells be human?

It just seems to me that all argument on the pro-life side is a cock-up of ignorance about many, many things, and deliberate choices to destroy if possible and by any means any clarity.

I can't force you either way. I can only tell you why I judge the matter as I do and try to convince of why you should adhere to my moral standards. — S

Alright, why is murdering infants wrong other to you?

I guess I would argue that you cannot will that all abortion should be outlawed because there are cases where it should be permissible: the health of the mother or even the ability of the parents to care for the child are factors to take into account. So, I guess I believe that abortion is wrong is not a moral truth.

I think if there were "ought's" that would be problematic. For example should we give all excess wealth that we have away to save starving children? Should we rescue as many animals as possible from natural harm?

It could be argued like Peter Singer does on an ought's framework we would be compelled to do a lot more than we do currently and sacrifice a lot more. And then the following argument is that, that puts an impossible burden on us.

Also if morality involves choice then we can't simply be compelled to do something it would seem, and retain freewill.

I think one thing you can objectively say about genocide is that it is extremely harmful and causes massive suffering. That really should be an incentive not to do it but yet humans have done it unfortunately.

I am not convinced abortion causes any suffering to the aborted child mainly because we have no memory of being in the womb or suffering the womb or having desires in the womb etc.

I don't think abortion is right or wrong. I don't think it is ideal or great for sure.

I think it is the lesser of two evils. But I don't accept most premises made by anti-abortionists

Personally, I believe there are at least some oughts. Just because we don’t always perform them is besides the point.

Mate, you’re just being a pedant. I could be referring either to all cellular life in the human body, or in particular to a new human being there, and there is no reason why it should be the former; remember this thread is about abortion. But look, if that’s the straw you want, then grasp away.

My argument in this thread has simply been this: If we’re going to value the lives of our fellow human beings at all, then we must do so from the beginning. Otherwise people, when it suits them, will come up with arbitrary reasons we’re allowed to end life, as they do.

Ethics is all about ought. If you can will that everyone ought to lie to the murderer at the door to save an innocent person, then it is a moral truth. If you can will genocide to be a universal law, then committing genocide is not morally wrong. It seems to me that there are at least some moral truths. — Noah Te Stroete

That's pretty funny. As if merely willing something makes it so. That's a one way ticket to absurdity.

One does not argue or support ones premises they are:

"A premise or premiss [a] is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words, a premise is an assumption that something is true" — Rank Amateur

What???!! I may well assume my premises are true; I had better, don't you think? Or what am I arguing for or about. But just because I assume them does not mean that they're true, or even that I think them true*, or that in virtue of my assuming you are compelled to accept them as true. Indeed, it is my business to have some sense of the truth of the premises of my argument. Marquis, as we have acknowledged, may be presumed to know what he is doing. And what does he do? He makes explicit that he is not defending his premises. Nor does he state that they are true! He instead says that he assumes their truth. If you accorded me any of the same grace you heap on Marquis, you would understand that you are compelled to acknowledge that the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns.

And yes, that is the problem, and far from being a trivial problem, it is fatal to the argument; and as the premises are assumed, sheds no light on them either. Don't you see that?

*I may be arguing for the sake of argument, or as devil's advocate. In research this is standard form. Establish a hypothesis, then test it.