Mint Chocolate Ice Cream Reigns Supreme! & Abortion.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Absurd? Abortion only happens after pregnancy occurs, so if there is another option besides abstinence that prevents pregnancies from occurring with 100% reliability, then please let me know.

Sterilization.

However, why does this matter? Short of sterilization the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy is abstinence, that is not in question. What is in question is whether that is a reasonable thing to expect from a couple.

Further, I have not argued that couples who do not want a pregnancy must abstain. I argued that it is better to abstain then to have an abortion, and I have said that a couple that does not want a pregnancy to occur will have the greatest chance to prevent them by abstaining.

Yes, abortions are terrible things. That has been agreed upon. The question is whether the government would be right in make abortions illegal. If abortions were made illegal, then there would be three options for couples:

1) abstinence
2) enduring an unwanted pregnancy
3) illegal abortion

1 is unreaiistic to ask of a couple, 2 is a violation of a woman's rights and often ends up bring children into bad circumstances, 3 is very dangerous for the woman and still results in an abortion.

You have argued in the above post that I am somehow shooting down a method for women to become pregnant, which I'm not. Even your method does not prevent pregnancy, it terminates it prematurely.

This is really just arguing semantics though, and I feel we may have gone about as far as this conversation can really go without hair splitting or repeating.

As you say this is a purely semantic difference in xander's case. His goal is not to prevent pregnancy, but to allow a woman to escape pregnancy in some way. Whether this is through prevention or termination doesn't matter to his argument.

[xander]

Thank you, Stews, for summing that up so nicely.

xander

[Feud]

<snip>

Well, so long as we are working in my ideal world, most of those problems would be solved by the couples caring for their own children, and not leeching off the government by lying about circumstance. But, since we don't seem to be operating in my ideal world anymore...

While I don't agree on the role of government in the scenario that you described, I think that your questions raise some good points, and to be honest, I don't have the answers for all of them. Even if I had the knowledge to fully and completely answer your questions about adoption services, national health care administration, and the detailed economic and social efforts needed to make such a system work (which I don't), I doubt that I could convey them sufficiently on an internet forum.

I admit you raise good questions, which I will have to give more thought to.

[KingAl]

As I've said before, the circumstance shouldn't exist in the first place nor should the argument.

I don't follow. Are you writing off an argument because the problem it seeks to alleviate 'shouldn't exist', regardless of the fact that in reality it does?

[Xocrates]

What you were doing was debating and then whenever it suited you refusing to carry on. These refusals always seemed to happen at convenient moments when you arguments were starting to fail. You're response was always something like "I can't debate with you, I'm leaving". You didn't actually leave and would carry on the discussion in other places.

Let's go back a bit, shall we? To the point where I stopped debating with you.

I already discussed with KingAl how that extension works both ways. However I never stated what you are claiming or is my logic extendable to it.

I'm sorry if you don't understand the extension, but it seems at least some others do.

I understand the extension. I just said it isn't valid by my point of view. Maybe it's you that doesn't understand that.

Now, is a human simply a community of one cell organisms or is it a single one? - here's the crux to show how your accusation is flawed - I believe the second.

The actually answer is both. . . A human is an organism made of many cells. Every humans starts out as a single cell.

I was justifying my logic. Your point here is completely irrelevant. Since it goes completely out of context and doesn't prove anything.

Every cell on my body works, or supposedly does, for the good of the whole organism. What this means is that some cells will be sacrificed so that their DNA, which is the same of every other cell belonging in my body, can be passed and the organism as a whole function.

I really don't know what you are arguing here.

Which is a pity since this is one of the most important points on my argument. I really don't know how to explain it any better or more clearly.

You'll also noticed that I mentioned previously that I'm fine with a few deaths as long as an equal or superior number survives. So even I never said what you claim I did, you're logic is immediately flawed.

First, this is an amazingly silly view. You are saying you are fine with murder as long as less than half the population of the world is not killed. So even the Holocaust was perfectly fine by your view because no where near half the population was killed.

If this really is your view, then what is your objection to abortion? As long as the abortion rate is less than 50% you should be fine with it according to this statement.

This was mis-phrased and I corrected it in my original response to your post.

And now here's the crux of the question. I have no problems in one hurting oneself since, despite the fact that they are multiple living beings, they are technically you. However, I consider the fetus a being distinct from the mother and that it is not only living, but also human.

By what basis? It can't survive on its own. If it is removed from the mother it will die just like a skin cell removed from her would die.

The fetus does not have the same DNA as the mother. I pointed out countless times before this point that I don't consider the fetus part of the mother. However for this point to work you need to assume that I do.

By this logic a tapeworm is part of it's host because it can't survive outside of it.

Finally, I'll mention by the umpteenth time that the reason I don't agree with you, and never will, is because my definitions and morals are different from yours. What that means is that both sides are neither right or wrong, they just disagree. And ask for everyone to let this go since we're not going anywhere and from this point on the discussion will only keep going in circles.

Definitions can vary but that is just semantics and shouldn't affect anything. Morals are fine, but they can be simply be cover for poor logic.

Which is kind of odd since you did not only argue semantics in the same post as you wrote this as you used it as a fundamental part of your argument.

The fetus is not part of the mother in the same way that an egg is not part of the chicken. Call it a parasitic relationship if you want, but since the cells do not belong to the mother they are not the mother.

What is your basis for saying they aren't part of the mother?

Like I said above in this post and in almost every bloody post I made. They don't have the same DNA, the cells belong to two different individuals although one requires the other to survive.



At no point did my logic fail. For answering this post all I had to do was point out your arguments were irrelevant, illogical, out of context, or simply the repetition of something that had been said before and which I had already justified. You even managed to contradict yourself.

Most pro-choice people believe that full human rights only extend to individuals who are biologically independent.

Conjoined twins are another example of individuals who are not biologically independent.

No, the twins as a whole are biologically independent and thus should be afforded the basic rights we afford all independent humans.

So the twins can be killed while they're still linked right?

You do realize that after birth the baby becomes biologicaly independent from the mother. How is it different from the twin's case?

I said I found it hard to believe you had never heard or seen anything about abortion in English. I still find it hard to believe and don't think you can positively say you haven't. The amount of stuff we are exposed to every day is so great, no one can say for certain what they have seen or not. All we can say is that we don't recall ever seeing it.

How much of that stuff that you're exposed every day is relative to the discussion outside your country? How much of it is done in a different language?

If I'm not mistaken the answer will be virtually none. Yet you insist the point that I very obviously have had extensive knowledge of the abortion debate in the US/UK/whatever and not only did I do that as all that debate was done in english.

You're doubting my word so much I can't see it as anything other than accusing me of being a liar.

"Foreign logic"? Logic is logic and it is only foreign to those who make illogical arguments.

2+2.000001 = 4

From a mathemathic point of view it is dead wrong, from an engineer's point of view it is reasonable. The logic differs.

[KingAl]

Finally, I'll mention by the umpteenth time that the reason I don't agree with you, and never will, is because my definitions and morals are different from yours. What that means is that both sides are neither right or wrong, they just disagree. And ask for everyone to let this go since we're not going anywhere and from this point on the discussion will only keep going in circles.

Definitions can vary but that is just semantics and shouldn't affect anything. Morals are fine, but they can be simply be cover for poor logic.

Which is kind of odd since you did not only argue semantics in the same post as you wrote this as you used it as a fundamental part of your argument.

Arguing semantics != poor argument. Some definitions are simply less based in logic than others. That is the point that Stewsburntmonkey was trying to make.

Most pro-choice people believe that full human rights only extend to individuals who are biologically independent.

Conjoined twins are another example of individuals who are not biologically independent.

No, the twins as a whole are biologically independent and thus should be afforded the basic rights we afford all independent humans.

So the twins can be killed while they're still linked right?

You've just misunderstood him. Stews was arguing that only those who are biologically independent have full human rights. A 'set' of conjoined twins is biologically independent, but the twins are mutually dependent on each-other. There is no contradiction, and no analogy with the situation of fetuses.

I said I found it hard to believe you had never heard or seen anything about abortion in English. I still find it hard to believe and don't think you can positively say you haven't. The amount of stuff we are exposed to every day is so great, no one can say for certain what they have seen or not. All we can say is that we don't recall ever seeing it.

<snip>

While I understand why people have strongly objected to the use (intentional or otherwise) of loaded terminology, I don't think we need to dwell on it. Just don't use the term 'pro-abortion', mmkay?

"Foreign logic"? Logic is logic and it is only foreign to those who make illogical arguments.

2+2.000001 = 4

From a mathemathic point of view it is dead wrong, from an engineer's point of view it is reasonable. The logic differs.

Arguments based on different sets of assumptions are naturally incompatible, though that does not exclude the central assumptions of an argument from being scrutinised or debunked.

[Xocrates]

Arguing semantics != poor argument. Some definitions are simply less based in logic than others. That is the point that Stewsburntmonkey was trying to make.

Actually, he very clearly stated that semantics should not affect anything. So by his argument if one is arguing semantics the argument is not valid since semantics don't affect anything. Obviously I disagree.

You've just misunderstood him. Stews was arguing that only those who are biologically independent have rights. A 'set' of conjoined twins is biologically independent, but the twins mutually dependent on each-other. There is no contradiction, and no analogy with the situation of fetuses.

So because the mother is not dependent on he fetus that makes it all right? And why isn't the fetus biologically independent? It was clearly stated they the twins and biologically independent and that they are not biologically independent. I'm not sure I'm following here.

While I understand why people have strongly objected to the use (intentional or otherwise) of loaded terminology, I don't think we need to dwell on it. Just don't use the term 'pro-abortion', mmkay?

That was not the point being argued. I was arguing that stews was accusing me of lying.

Arguments based on different sets of assumptions are naturally incompatible, though that does not exclude the central assumptions of an argument from being scrutinised or debunked.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Now, is a human simply a community of one cell organisms or is it a single one? - here's the crux to show how your accusation is flawed - I believe the second.

The actually answer is both. . . A human is an organism made of many cells. Every humans starts out as a single cell.

I was justifying my logic. Your point here is completely irrelevant. Since it goes completely out of context and doesn't prove anything.

Irrelevant? You asked a question and I answered it from a scientific perspective. I don't see how that is irrelevant.

Which is a pity since this is one of the most important points on my argument. I really don't know how to explain it any better or more clearly.

Well, if you can't explain "one of the most important points" of your argument, it is a shame.

The fetus does not have the same DNA as the mother. I pointed out countless times before this point that I don't consider the fetus part of the mother. However for this point to work you need to assume that I do.

Not every cell in the body has the same DNA either. Sperm and egg cells for example would approximately the same amount of DNA in common with the mother as the fetus's cells would. By your argument we should treat all of these cells as separate from the mother.

By this logic a tapeworm is part of it's host because it can't survive outside of it.

This isn't altogether untrue which is why I brought up the issue of the tape worm earlier. The host should have every right to do what it sees fit with regard to anything inside its body. In this I class tapeworms and fetus in the same group.

Which is kind of odd since you did not only argue semantics in the same post as you wrote this as you used it as a fundamental part of your argument.

Semantics only deal with what our words mean, they don't change the underlying reality. The semantic pieces of my argument are simply establishing a link between my usage of words and their meaning. I don't rely on this link for anything beyond the discussion. It's not a core part of my views in other words.

At no point did my logic fail. For answering this post all I had to do was point out your arguments were irrelevant, illogical, out of context, or simply the repetition of something that had been said before and which I had already justified. You even managed to contradict yourself.

I am just going to note that saying something is irrelevant,illogical or out of context doesn't make it so. You actually need to demonstrate how it is irrelevant, illogical or out of context.

So the twins can be killed while they're still linked right?

They can be killed if it is a matter of survival for the other, yes.

You do realize that after birth the baby becomes biologicaly independent from the mother. How is it different from the twin's case?

As I have said equal rights should extend to any person once they are biologically independent. Thus once a baby is born, they enjoy these rights. With conjoined twins, they enjoy these rights after birth as well, but only to the outside world. Between themselves (the twins) they are not biologically independent and thus the rights don't apply. One may be sacrificed to save the other for example.

How much of that stuff that you're exposed every day is relative to the discussion outside your country? How much of it is done in a different language?

Quite a bit actually. My TV has news stations is many different languages.

If I'm not mistaken the answer will be virtually none. Yet you insist the point that I very obviously have had extensive knowledge of the abortion debate in the US/UK/whatever and not only did I do that as all that debate was done in english.

As you will see you are mistaken. I never insisted that you had extensive knowledge of the abortion debate in the US/UK. You are yet again putting words in my mouth.

You're doubting my word so much I can't see it as anything other than accusing me of being a liar.

I'm just saying that you can't possibly make such a claim.

2+2.000001 = 4

From a mathemathic point of view it is dead wrong, from an engineer's point of view it is reasonable. The logic differs.

That's not an issue of logic. That's an issue of rounding in math which is a separate issue from core logic.

Like I said, logic is only foreign to those who don't use it.

[KingAl]

Arguing semantics != poor argument. Some definitions are simply less based in logic than others. That is the point that Stewsburntmonkey was trying to make.

Actually, he very clearly stated that semantics should not affect anything. So by his argument if one is arguing semantics the argument is not valid since semantics don't affect anything. Obviously I disagree.

Semantics should not affect anything, in the sense that changing definitions should not allow one to reach the opposite conclusion. In this sense, morality is a different matter, because it doesn't need to be based on anything - though it should be internally consistent.

So because the mother is not dependent on he fetus that makes it all right? And why isn't the fetus biologically independent? It was clearly stated they the twins and biologically independent and that they are not biologically independent. I'm not sure I'm following here.

The twins, as a whole, are biologically independent. They are, however, dependent on eachother on equal terms. The fetus is biologically dependent on its mother.

While I understand why people have strongly objected to the use (intentional or otherwise) of loaded terminology, I don't think we need to dwell on it. Just don't use the term 'pro-abortion', mmkay?

That was not the point being argued. I was arguing that stews was accusing me of lying.

I was arguing that this aspect of the argument was pointless, whatever Stews was saying.

[Xocrates]

Semantics should not affect anything, in the sense that changing definitions should not allow one to reach the opposite conclusion.

Actually, it does. If I define your green as my blue it means we'll never agree what colour the curtains are. We need to have the same definitions for that argument to be valid.

As long as the definitions differ, even if only in the borderline cases (as in this situation) different conclusions can be reached.

The twins, as a whole, are biologically independent. They are, however, dependent on eachother on equal terms. The fetus is biologically dependent on its mother.

And regarding this point I pointed out that there are people who are not biologically independent by themselves and need the help of thirds or of a variety of appliances to remain alive (granted, they are not biologically dependent of a specific human being for the most part). By the logic shown these can be killed from the moment they become inconvenient.

I was arguing that this aspect of the argument was pointless, whatever Stews was saying.

Agreed. But I don't like being called a liar.

[KingAl]

Semantics should not affect anything, in the sense that changing definitions should not allow one to reach the opposite conclusion.

Actually, it does. If I define your green as my blue it means we'll never agree what colour the curtains are. We need to have the same definitions for that argument to be valid.

But the resulting logical conclusion should not hinge on how you define a word. We can both agree that 1 + 1 = 2, even if you express it as 1 + 1 = 10.
Something which is said using one definition may be false using another, but the fundamental logic behind them is not altered.

The twins, as a whole, are biologically independent. They are, however, dependent on eachother on equal terms. The fetus is biologically dependent on its mother.

And regarding this point I pointed out that there are people who are not biologically independent by themselves and need the help of thirds or of a variety of appliances to remain alive (granted, they are not biologically dependent of specific human being for the most part). By the logic shown these can be killed from the moment they become inconvenient.

By the definition of biologically independent that Stews is working from, they are biologically independent.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Actually, it does. If I define your green as my blue it means we'll never agree what colour the curtains are. We need to have the same definitions for that argument to be valid.

But that does not mean the curtains are two different colors. In system of logic what you call something doesn't matter as long as you are consistent. In your example, you'd have to debate semantics to establish a common label for various colors before you could engage in a debate about the color of the curtains.

As long as the definitions differ, even if only in the borderline cases (as in this situation) different conclusions can be reached.

Again, logic does not care what the labels for something are, only that you are consistent.

And regarding this point I pointed out that there are people who are not biologically independent by themselves and need the help of thirds or of a variety of appliances to remain alive (granted, they are not biologically dependent of a specific human being for the most part). By the logic shown these can be killed from the moment they become inconvenient.

No, because they are dependent on technology not other people. The point is that when you are dealing with individuals who are biologically linked you can't apply the same rules you do to individuals who are biologically independent.

[Xocrates]

If you're saying that if we follow the same logic and use the same definitions we get the same result. Then I obviously agree.

However that was not the point. The point was that there are different logical approaches and different definitions and that will alter the result.

If we all agree in following the same logic pattern and the same definitions then we're all in agreement and there is never a reason to debate. Which is why I said we need to apply "foreign logic" (or definitions for that matter) to have a debate.

In the examples at hand, we can agree that the curtains are one colour but not which, in this case we have consistent logics but different definitions and the debate will wander into a war on whose definition is right.

On the binary case. We agree that 1+1=2 but disagree on the way of doing so (one uses binary logic and the other uses decimal) thus the debate will wander into whose logic is right.


That being said, I stated before that if I followed the "pro-choice" definitions I would agree with them. But since those definitions are not the same as mine I naturally disagree. (thus making this mostly a war on definitions). And was why I tried repeatedly to end the debate on the point "let's just agree in disagreeing"

By the definition of biologically independent that Stews is working from, they are biologically independent.

If that is so (although I'm not completely convinced), then I've proven my point (because in case you've forgotten, the reasons for this point of discussion had nothing to do with the abortion debate) in that extending logic by enormous amounts, as has been done through all the debate as core points, fails terribly because that logic breaks along the way.


Actually, now that I think on it. I'm not debating abortion for quite some time now.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

If we all agree in following the same logic pattern and the same definitions then we're all in agreement and there is never a reason to debate. Which is why I said we need to apply "foreign logic" (or definitions for that matter) to have a debate.

Debates are possible because no one knows the whole truth. We all know bits and pieces. A debate is about sharing what we know with others so that we can reach a more complete understanding. The underlying logic is constant.

In the examples at hand, we can agree that the curtains are one colour but not which, in this case we have consistent logics but different definitions and the debate will wander into a war on whose definition is right.

The point is it doesn't matter. Whether something is called "red" or "rouge" doesn't matter. In the curtain example you can easily measure the color of curtains using the wavelength of the reflected light. That is the reality. What name you give to what parts of the spectrum doesn't change the underlying reality.

On the binary case. We agree that 1+1=2 but disagree on the way of doing so (one uses binary logic and the other uses decimal) thus the debate will wander into whose logic is right.

Again that is not logic, it is simply notation.

That being said, I stated before that if I followed the "pro-choice" definitions I would agree with them. But since those definitions are not the same as mine I naturally disagree. (thus making this mostly a war on definitions). And was why I tried repeatedly to end the debate on the point "let's just agree in disagreeing"

The issue is that the definitions don't affect the reality. They are purely a construct of humans.

If that is so (although I'm not completely convinced), then I've proven my point (because in case you've forgotten, the reasons for this point of discussion had nothing to do with the abortion debate) in that extending logic by enormous amounts, as has been done through all the debate as core points, fails terribly because that logic breaks along the way.

The biological independence issue IS the basis of my stance on abortion. You seem to be incredibly confused about what the argument is. You haven't proven anything other than that you don't seem to understand what is being said.

[Xocrates]

Debates are possible because no one knows the whole truth. We all know bits and pieces. A debate is about sharing what we know with others so that we can reach a more complete understanding. The underlying logic is constant.

Read it the way you want:

The same logic can confer two different outcomes.

Or

You use different logical paths to attain different conclusions.

If this is wrong, then it's physically impossible for two persons to have divergent opinions by having only the same facts.

The point is it doesn't matter. Whether something is called "red" or "rouge" doesn't matter. In the curtain example you can easily measure the color of curtains using the wavelength of the reflected light. That is the reality. What name you give to what parts of the spectrum doesn't change the underlying reality.

How you define something is very important. And not everyone has to follow the same definitions.

I admit the colour argument was not the best since you can give a quite definite definition, but many definitions are subjective and vague. Borderline cases are extremely difficult to define. We can't even agree if the fetus is part of the mother.

If that isn't clear by now you haven't been paying attention.

On the binary case. We agree that 1+1=2 but disagree on the way of doing so (one uses binary logic and the other uses decimal) thus the debate will wander into whose logic is right.

Again that is not logic, it is simply notation.

Hum... You're probably right. But that depends on how you define logic.

The issue is that the definitions don't affect the reality. They are purely a construct of humans.

And are thus subject to human fallacy. Most definitions are not definite.

However the true flaw on your argument is that definitions affect the way we think, not what things are. Since definitions are not definite neither is the way people think.

The biological independence issue IS the basis of my stance on abortion. You seem to be incredibly confused about what the argument is. You haven't proven anything other than that you don't seem to understand what is being said.

At no point I said it wasn't. I simply said that from the beginning I didn't care what it was and when I set out on that argument I wanted my side to fail, because I wasn't trying to prove abortion right or wrong. I was doing something completely different.

Considering I started that point of argument, it seems to me it was you that missed the point.