tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2287877105492467511..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Operation Pro-choice Mop-upRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73783050820598565402008-11-10T09:37:00.000-05:002008-11-10T09:37:00.000-05:00Marshall,I agree that Moore is a hack. He spends h...Marshall,<BR/><BR/>I agree that Moore is a hack. He spends his time debating that Old Time religion form of fundamentalism he grew up around. The "America is Christian" subculture. The "Jesus is your buddy" stuff. The moralistic type of Christianity he grew up around. That's why when called upon to exercise the hamster in his head at a higher speed than he's used to dealing with, he understandably falls down exhausted. That's why all he can do is "tell jokes." His words, not mine.<BR/><BR/>Moores argument *does not* work if the unborn baby is fully human. That's my point. But he thinks it does. So I'm showing him that *his* argument, *as given*, is a hack job.<BR/><BR/>Now, when Moore can get past his pride and do somehting I know he loathes, admit I beat him in yet another debate, then we can move on to those issues. But so long as he's going to put forth the stupid claim that his argument works even if the fetus is fully human, I'm going to point out that the emperor has no clothes and hi-light that stupidityErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9279598560897200542008-10-28T22:02:00.000-04:002008-10-28T22:02:00.000-04:00I'd like to comment on the "personhood" argument, ...I'd like to comment on the "personhood" argument, because there seems to be some discrepancy here about what the two sides require of the other.<BR/><BR/>The apologists on the one side are stating that the personhood argument is irrelevant. I don't see how this is possible, since the claim is that the abortion destroys a human being. The question that is natural brought up is: is a baby fetus a human being?<BR/><BR/>Most people would argue that a human sperm is not a human being, nor is a human egg. If they did, they'd have to deal with the concept that ovulation, masturbation, nocturnal emissions, etc. are all murder. I think we can all agree that this is not the case.<BR/><BR/>Most people would also agree that a baby that comes out of the womb <I>is</I> a human being. It can breathe by itself, speak, think, and perform *most* of the functions that you and I can (enough that we call it human).<BR/><BR/>This 9 month point is rather arbitrary, as development is a nonstop process until death (the 9 month period happens to be where the fetus is no longer in the womb, but it develops along all the same). The question is, if the beginning--the sperm and the egg--are not a human, and the 9-month baby is, then at what point does this organism become a human being? This question, in the context of the apologist's argument, seems unavoidable.Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15354960120471140957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30814616302345495402008-10-28T01:26:00.000-04:002008-10-28T01:26:00.000-04:00The first paragraph reminds me of a conversation I...The first paragraph reminds me of a conversation I once observed (Adapted from the movie, <I>Amadeus</I>):<BR/><BR/><B>ZACH:</B> My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many words the eyes can read in the course of an evening. Don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many words, that's all. Cut a few and it will be perfect.<BR/><BR/><B>MANATA:</B> Which few did you have in mind?Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38848219303751209882008-10-26T15:35:00.000-04:002008-10-26T15:35:00.000-04:00Hey Craig,Caleb's mostly stated what I meant.I'd a...Hey Craig,<BR/><BR/>Caleb's mostly stated what I meant.<BR/><BR/>I'd add that, much like with evidences in apologetics, I can argue on the unbeliever's own terms. That is, I can use all the evidence of embryology and show that the fetus has it's own unique human DNA, it is a unified organism, it directs itself towards next stages of life, it is living, etc., etc., etc. So it is a human being. The offspring of humans. If not, what species is it? Especially when dealing with unbelievers. With naturalistic materialists. What more do I need? Are they going to invoke some kind of Cartesian soul? <BR/><BR/>I think, as virtually all embryologists agree, it is undeniable that it is a human. That part of the debate is fairly a closed case.<BR/><BR/>But, just because one may be a human being doesn't mean that it is the subject of rights, allegedly. So here's where non-scientific debates enter into the picture. What property or quality is needed to make on the bearer of rights? Not a scientific question.<BR/><BR/>Or, some might want to bring the concept of personhood into it. Granting the obvious - that the fetus is a living human being - they may want an *extra* feature that makes it the subject of rights - personhood. So, they would argue that it is a human that is not a person. <BR/><BR/>I can go to all of these places, especially since I never said my argument was limited to using the findings of science. But as far a what science tells us, the festus is a full human. It has all the *essential* elements that would classify it as human *in this field*. <BR/><BR/>So, if pro-choicers want to add to the limits of science and argue that the findings of science are not enough to show t's full humanity, that we need to run to the philosophers to determine these questions, so be it. I can play on that field too and will gladly take the admission of yet another area of life that science is impotent to speak on. So these same people are going to have a hard time when they revert back to deifying science in other areas of importance.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18580770280144068052008-10-26T02:30:00.000-04:002008-10-26T02:30:00.000-04:00Hi Craig, Paul never said *personhood* is easy to ...Hi Craig, <BR/><BR/>Paul never said *personhood* is easy to prove scientifically.<BR/><BR/>Although, he may mean personhood by 'full humanity', I'm not sure. <BR/><BR/>What he said is that "I have "science" on my side here too. In fact, arguing for the full humanity of the fetus is actually one of the easiest arguments to make, I think. But that's "immaterial." [to Paul's argument]<BR/><BR/>Here Paul may be saying that science helps in proving the full humanity of the fetus (i.e. personhood), by answering the ontological question, that the fetus *is* a human being. The ontological status of the unborn entity definitely informs its normative status. <BR/><BR/>Also, talk of 'full humanity' stikes me as better than talk of 'personhood', as I see no reason (besides accidental properties, which I don't think are good reasons) to differentiate between humanity and personhood.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62065216481962133402008-10-26T01:12:00.000-04:002008-10-26T01:12:00.000-04:00Paul,I would be interested in seeing how you would...Paul,<BR/><BR/>I would be interested in seeing how you would defend the personhood of the fetus scientifically. I had said in one of my comments to Zach that I always considered "personhood" to be a metaphysical category rather than a scientific one. I mean, you can see cells, organs, limbs, etc. under a microscope, but you don't see "personhood", right? Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean when you say it's easy to prove it scientifically.Craig Sowderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624212251233585028noreply@blogger.com