The following is a conversation between my girlfriend and I on an anti-abortion website, and our critique of it.
Angel: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm
He’s explaining about abortion and how it’s wrong.
Dan: ah
*gets ready to tear it apart with rhetoric*
A: Using long words, in order to confuse the stupid.
D: of course
A: … like me.
D: naturally using the long words wrong, I’d imagine.
And you’re intelligent, love.
A: I don’t know what he’s talking about!
I cannot parse step three.
D: Hang on.
I shall read it.
Man
hahaha
it sounds like the Chewbacca defence.
If this is an Apple, Roe vs Wade must be overturned!
If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must aquit!
A: I am so confused, what the fuck is he trying to say there.
Oh, step 4!!
There is where it falls apart!
Our fourth principle is that we know what we are. If we know what an apple is, surely we know what a human being is. For we aren’t apples; we don’t live as apples, we don’t feel what apples feel (if anything). We don’t experience the existence or growth or life of apples, yet we know what apples are. A fortiori, we know what we are, for we have “inside information”…
D: but!
A: But humans are *infinitely* more complicated than an apple!
D: Yes!
And he didn’t actually *DEFINE*
what a human is!
He just said he knows what a human is.
Okay… then What is a Human!
(Random Capitals of Anger!)
((also, I didn’t actually finish reading yet))
A: Go on, go on.
D: Step 2 is completely gibberish.
A: YES I KNOW.
D: Alright, I MUST refute this article in my blog.
A: ohgod. The opening sentence of step 5. “The fifth principle is the indispensable, common-sensical basis for human rights”.
WHAT ARE YOU, DR. FUCKING SEUSS!!!
D: hahahaha!
A: “common-sensical”??!
THAT IS NOT A WORD I DON’T CARE *WHAT* YOU SAY
D: hahahaha nooo!
A: *hyperventilates with rage*
D: *hugs*
breath, my love.
A: I THINK HE WAS HIGH WHEN HE WROTE THIS.
*inhales*
D: hahaha!
A: *exhales*
D: maybe
A: “By this point in our argument, some are probably feeling impatient.”
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK.
D: “From Step 2, I deduce the third principle, also as an immediate logical corollary, that we really know what some things (other things than apples) really are. This follows if we only add the minor premise that an apple is another thing.”
no.
No it doesn’t.
You took as an axiom, “you know what an apple is”.
From there you say, “oh, also, we know what other things are.”
So why don’t you just take the axiom “We know what some things are” to begin with!?
Well, ignoring the fact that it’s a stupid wording.
And it says almost nothing.
an apple is another thing!?
So wait, what’s an apple now?
Did he just disprove his own premise right there?
it takes me so long to read these fregging things, because I have to *figure out* what *each sentence* means after I read it.
“All talk about rights, about right and wrong, about justice, presupposes this principle that we really know what some things really are. We cannot argue about anything at all—anything real, as distinct from arguing about arguing, and about words, and attitudes—unless we accept this principle. We can talk about feelings without it, but we cannot talk about justice. We can have a reign of…”
short version:
Morality presupposes objective reality.
Therefore, for the purposes of this argument, let’s ignore skepticism.
say what you mean in as few words as possible!
hahaha
A: Oh, he called me stupid.
D: Don’t worry, love.
A: I kill him now.
D: I’m going to write a full response to this.
A: I find where he lives and kill him dead.
“Scientific ignorance, if it is not ignoring, or deliberate denial or dishonesty, is perhaps pitiable but not morally blame-worthy. You don’t have to be wicked to be stupid.”
So, because I don’t know when a human becomes a human, I’m *stupid*???
D: His logic is truely… nonexistant.
Is the only word for it. 4 does not follow.
and is irrelivent.
nnng!
A: *hug*
D: listen:
“There is obviously more mystery in a human than in an apple, but there is also more knowledge.”
so there’s more we know, and more WE DON’T KNOW!
Like when life begins!
A: “So they have to deny the moral principle that leads to the pro-life conclusion. This, I suspect, is a vast and major sea change. The camel has gotten not just his nose, but his torso under the tent.”
D: ???
A: So we’re talking about the sea, and a camel, and… don’t camels live in the desert, where there IS no sea?…
AAAAH.’
D: His metaphors are as bad as his general talking!!!
His English License should be revoked.
A: “I think most people refuse to think or argue about abortion because they see that the only way to remain pro-choice is to abort their reason first.”
I see what you did there.
Ho-ho. A pun. How devilishly witty of you.
D: yees.
also unintentionally ironic.
As he has, you know, no reasoning skills to speak of.
“Knowledge and mystery are no more incompatible than eating and hungering for more.”
umm…
no one said it wasn’t?
eating knowledge??
um, okay, if you say so..
*eats an encyclopedia*
A: Nom nom nom.
D: haha!
A: Knowledge. It has a flavr. It tastes lyke applez.
D: mhm
oh!
I see what you did there
hahaha
*kiss*
right, on to #5…
5 doesn’t really say anything.
Moving on…
NNG!
A: ?
D: #6, I DISAGREE!
Morality is based on Logic!
not metaphysics!
A: Oh, you’re not going to like the rest of this.
D: I’m sure I won’t.
Now to read the actual point.
A: “Suppose that not a single principle of this essay is true, beginning with the first one. Suppose that we do not even know what an apple is. Even then abortion is unjustifiable.” Oh, I can’t *wait* to hear this idiot explain that.
D: right…
I know I sure as hell don’t know what an apple is.
A: “Let’s assume not a dogmatic skepticism (which is self-contradictory) but a skeptical skepticism.”
D: ??
A: For some reason, that is my new favourite sentence.
D: hahahaha!
A: Also, try saying skeptical skepticism five times fast.
D: It’s just nonsensical enough to be fun.
I keep saying “skiptical skipticism”
hahaha
“Metaphysics means simply philosophizing about reality. The sixth principle means that rights depend on reality, and our knowledge of rights depends on our knowledge of reality.”
DISAGREE DISAGREE!
Rights depend on what you base them on. Reality is irrelevant.
If you base all rights on Total Freedom, that’s your morality. If you base all rights on Complete Equality, *that’s* your morality. If you base them on life, you have a morality that protects life at all costs.
The problem with modern morality,
is that varying people base them on various combinations of things.
And no one quite agrees on what’s more important.
It doesn’t matter if the world is floating in a giant turtle’s dream, created by a god, or spontaneously banged into existence.
Life, freedom, equality, religious morality, and other bases exist regardless of the actual reality of things!
A: He is such a jerk.
D: mmhm.
A: I finished it, I’m ready to listen to your tirade.
D: alright.
2nd paragraph of 6:
yeah, you answered that one a while back
hahaha
“Ah, but I suspect we began with the controversial stuff. For not all are impatient; others are uneasy. “Too simplistic,” “not nuanced,” “a complex issue”—do these phrases leap to mind as shields to protect you from the spear that you know is coming at the end of the argument?”
umm…
no.
For your argument is a dull stick to begin with, and as such I am proceeding to break it to pieces.
A shield is very unnessisary.
Like wearing bulletproof armour to a water-pistol fight, that would be.
“what is right depends on what is”
Counterexample:
According to you, we all know what is.
Yet, we do not, apparently, all know what is right.
As everyone is still arguing about it.
A: this guy is such an asshole!
D: yep
A: “dogs are not rational”, my ass.
D: god, I can barely read this scribbledygoop.
A: A dog will stay away from fire because the dog knows that it’ll hurt.
D: yes
A: A dog will bark at a stranger because the dog doesn’t trust people it doesn’t know.
D: anyone who said dogs aren’t rational beings has never owned a dog.
Also:
Humans are animals too!
As some people seem to forget.
“…but it’s not wrong to break a limb off a tree”
I’m sure that some would disagree with even that.
Dogs don’t have the right to vote because they don’t understand the issues involved!
I would argue that for the same reason, some *people* shouldn’t have the right to vote.
And just because a dog can not grasp the complexities of human society, does not mean that they don’t posess some level of reasoning.
On to #7.
How many are there, out of curiosity?
13.
A: And an extra.
D: Okay, that’s not too bad.
A: Begging you to dispute him.
D: mhm
A: Bastard’s asking for it.
D: hahaha!
“The main reason people deny that morality must (or even can) be based on metaphysics is that they say we don’t really know what reality is, we only have opinions.”
That’s not what I said, therefore your counterargument is irrelivent.
It’s amazing how seldom people correctly predict counterarguments.
“But the very fact that we argue about it—a fact the skeptic points to as a reason for skepticism—is a refutation of skepticism. We don’t argue about how we feel, about subjective things. You never hear an argument like this: ‘I feel great.’ ‘No, I feel terrible.’ “
Again, I am not arguing from scepticism, I am arguing for absolute morality with a different basis than yours.
Also, who *hasn’t* been confused about whether to feel great or terrible at some point?
hahaha
“For instance, both pro-lifers and pro-choicers usually agree that it’s wrong to kill innocent persons against their will and it’s not wrong to kill parts of persons, like cancer cells.”
so it’s not wrong to kill an arm, apparently?
Bad wording.
A: *stab stab stab* DEATH TO THE ARM… OF HATE!!!
D: The reason it’s alright to kill cancer cells is that the person *doesn’t want* cancer cells in their body!
A: … ow, my arm.
D: hahahaha!
Not because it’s *only part* of a person.
A: And also!
By that logic! (people don’t want cancer cells in their body, therefore we can kill them)
Some women don’t want a baby in their body.
D: yes!
A: Also! Would you not concede that an embryo, before it develops into a sentient being, is part of its mother’s body? It’s connected to her, feeding off of what she eats, using her blood and her energy.
D: mhm
A: Therefore, since you yourself stated it was okay to kill a part of a person, wouldn’t it be okay to kill the part of the mother that will eventually, given enough time, become a human?
Seeing that it’s a part of her body and all.
D: Mhm, by that argument.
A: Continue with the reaming of this man’s idiocy.
D: “And both the proponents and opponents of capital punishment usually agree that human life is of great value; that’s why the proponent wants to protect the life of the innocent by executing murderers and why the opponent wants to protect the life even of the murderer. They radically disagree about how to apply the principle that human life is valuable, but they both assume and appeal to that same
principle”
wow…
I actually agree with that passage.
Of coure, he missed that point that it’s because people place different emphasis on different values,
A: This is why he’s such an asshole. He goes and says stuff that makes sense, just to fuck with you.
also, it is snacks time for Angel. Keep talking, I’ll catch up.
D: and it’s because some people value the lives of the innocent higher than the lives of murderers, and some people, on principle, value all lives the same…
hahaha!
okay
8. is a good argument against Biblical morality. How can someone be so close and yet so wrong?
Humans don’t have rights because they’re human…
Humans have rights because the rights of thinking beings follow from logic.
It all starts with freedom. It’s the order of the individual freedoms that the jury’s still out on.
But if one thinks about it, it can be deduced.
Life follows from freedom.
Because you can’t have the freedom to do anything else if you don’t have the freedom to live.
Therefore, life is the most fundamental freedom. Most everyone agrees with this.
The question that people don’t know is, ‘where does life begin?’.
And when is a life a thinking being, and as such, subject to human rights?
You have never, once, adressed the question: “When is a human a human?”.
You just vaguely stated “We know what a human is.”
Which DOESN’T ANSWER ANYTHING!
Rights follow from freedoms.
We all have the freedom to live, therefore we have the RIGHT to live.
I agree that there is no authority that can arbitrarily declare rights.
Rights must be derived from thought and logic.
Point 9:
A: (I’m back, by the way, and have been since point 8.)
D: ah
Hi!
A: Hai!
I didn’t want to interrupt, you were ranting so impressively.
D: okay
*kiss*
so, point 9:
umm, yes?
You forgot the possibilty that no one has rights,
but for a discussion on morality, that’s irrelivent anyway.
All humans have the same rights because all humans are fundamentally the same.
To discriminate on any basis against any group by giving them less rights is to arbitrarily declare one group superior, and penalizing people for something they have no control over.
And as we already agreed that rights are not arbitrary,
It would not follow from any logical system of morality for any group to be discriminated against.
moving on.
WOW!
the first point that actually has to do with the actual premise!
hm.
“I won’t address the morality of voluntary euthanasia here.”
And then he goes on to…
wait for it…
Address the morality of voluntary euthanasia!
A: OMG!
D: so we know *he’s* a liar.
hahahaha
I will do you one better, sir, and actually *not* argue against your opinion on euthanasia.
That is all you will hear about the matter.
A: Haha!
D: “But harming or killing another against his will, not by free contract, is clearly wrong; if that isn’t wrong, what is?”
I never argued that it wasn’t wrong.
You have yet to define ‘another’ though.
“But that’s what abortion is. Mother Teresa argued, simply, ‘If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong.’ “
You’re wrong.
A: Ahahahahahahaha.
I love you.
D: *kiss*
I love you too.
“The fetus doesn’t want to be killed; it seeks to escape.”
Of course the fetus doesn’t want to be killed!
It doesn’t *want* anything!
It’s a fetus!
It can not think!
Therefore it is not the same as other humans!
Therefore it has not the same rights as humans!
There, I just argued for abortion in three lines.
Which is far more elegant than this windbag.
A: I’m odd — I’m totally pro-choice, and I hate pro-lifers, and yet I won’t ever have an abortion.
D: Well it’s your choice.
Hense, pro-choice.
A: I choose it for totally selfish reasons.
Surgery scares me.
D: well there you go then.
That’s totally consistant.
(which is a great compliment from me, by the way)
hahaha
A: Thank you, dear. You do realize that if you get me pregnant, you’ll have to have the baby with me.
D: I know
So we’ll be careful.
It’s good to be careful anyway, even if you would have one, abortions are damn expensive.
A: I have a friend who got a girl pregnant, she had an abortion.
$32,000.
D: WOW
I knew they were expensive, but holy zombie Jesus!
A: Haha!
I know!
Maybe $3200.
D: hmm
A: Either way, a lot.
D: that was more what I was guessing
yeah, either way
so anyway, back to ripping apart this guy’s essay.
A: Yees.
I’m sure your blog people don’t need to know about our sex life.
D: hahaha
yeah
A: … That said, I’m the only one who reads your blog…
D: true
*shrug*
oh well.
*waves* hello other blog people who may or may not exist!
Maybe the author of this article I’m critiquing will read this.
“Did you dare to watch The Silent Scream? Did the media dare to allow it to be shown? No, they will censor nothing except the most common operation in America.”
‘The Media’.
I love it when people refer to ‘The Media’ as one entity
hahaha
Anyway, this is irrelivent to the topic at hand.
A: Wait.
If you know that the media censored it, and so a lot of people didn’t get to see it…
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU USING IT AS A REFERENCE!!
D: hahaha!
A: It’s like, “If you didn’t see this, then you don’t deserve to understand my opinions.”
D: cause obscure references that no one looks up are a good tool to ‘win’ arguments that are wrong
yes
hahaha
I do not wish to watch a movie about surgery, thank you.
That would not be fun.
A: Especially with a pretentious name like “The Silent Scream”.
D: yeah
A: I’m gonna look that up, right now.
D: Also, I’d like to see citation for “the most common operation in America”
It’s irrelevent to the point, but still.
Especially when it’s illegal in so many states.
A: The Silent Scream is a 1984 video about abortion directed and filmed by Dr. Bernard Nathanson. The film depicts the abortion process via ultrasound and vividly shows an abortion taking place on the fetus. In detail, the fetus is described as appearing to make outcries of pain and discomfort during the process.
D: right
animals feel pain.
And yet we hunt them.
A: 1984?? I read that as 1994!
D: That argument is either irrelivent or an argument for vegitarianism.
A: Oh, well, fuck, why are you believing something from 24 years ago!
D: hahahaha
A: * CLAIM: The 12-week fetus experiences pain.
* FACTS: At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. [...]
Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 26–27 weeks’ gestation (24–25 weeks’ fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns.
* CLAIM: The fetus emits “the silent scream.”
* FACTS: A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/abortion/anti-choice-activity/reports/facts-speak-louder-than-silent-scream-6136.htm
D: ah, cool
I like all facts to be thouroughly researched.
Anyway, on to 11.
“Are persons a subclass of humans, or are humans a subclass of persons?”
Umm… I think we already established the latter.
the question is when something *becomes* a human, and hense a person!
“the possibility that there are nonhuman persons, like extraterrestrials, elves, angels, gods, God, or the Persons of the Trinity…”
I love how he puts elves in the same catagory as extraterrestrials.
hahaha
“…or the possibility that there are some nonpersonal humans, unpersons, humans without rights.”
We already established that there aren’t!
Get on with it!
“Traditional common sense and morality say all humans are persons and have rights.”
‘Traditional common sense’!?
Then why, prey tell, have we had discrimination, slavery, serfdom, and general opression, racisim, sexism, homophobia, etc, etc, for MOST OF HUMAN HISTORY!?
Fail.
“all humans are persons and have rights.”
I agree with your point, though not your appeal.
“Modern moral relativism says that only some humans are persons, for only those who are given rights by others (i.e., those in power) have rights.”
Noo,
Moral relativism says morals are relative depending on the situation.
Hense, *relativism*
A: That’s why it’s called — yes.
D: *Modern* ideas are for equality!
You got it backwards!
A: You amaze me.
D: hahaha
*kiss* thanks.
“Thus, if we have power, we can “depersonalize” any group we want: blacks, slaves, Jews, political enemies, liberals, fundamentalists—or unborn babies.”
…rright
Ignoring the list before the last as irrelivent,
You can only, to use your neologism (though it pains me), “depersonalize” a group that is a person to begin with!
And you have *yet* to establish that an unborn baby is a person!
“A common way to state this philosophy is…”
Really?
I’ve *never* heard that philosophy stated that way in my life.
If, indeed, it is a philosophy at all,
and not just something you made up for the point of your argument.
It is not, in any case, moral relativism.
A: Well, he calls himself a philosopher, you see.
D: ahhh
rright.
This paragraph is, again, irrelivent to the topic at hand.
You do not “assign rights”
to animals arbitrarily.
Many have none, or nearly none. How you choose to treat a member of that species is up to you.
However,
some animals *do* have recognized rights.
Most people agree that killing a dog is wrong.
Unless maybe it’s really sick and dying… which is euthenasia so I’ll stop talking about that now as I said I wouldn’t.
Or, another example.
An elephant.
It’s not just because they’re endangered.
Elephants are intelligent creatures, and people know this.
Dolphins, whales, the list goes on.
One could say, then, that these creatures are, indeed, people.
A: Sure, if intelligence is all you’re going by.
OOH!
Actually, if I may, I have something to comment with.
D: okay
A: So, regarding what makes a human “human”.
I saw a documentary today about a family that walks on all fours. It was about genes and stuff like that and was really quite interesting.
It brought up the point that there are three basic things unique to humans.
Walking upright, the size of the brain as compared to other creatures, and speech.
A fetus can do none of these things.
And has none of these things.
A fetus’s legs aren’t developed enough to walk erect, even if you took it out of the womb and placed it on the ground. Its brain is nowhere near as developed as it will be at birth. And language? No.
Therefore!
D: Point 12.
Which is a long one.
“To be pro-choice, you must deny at least one of them, because taken together they logically entail the pro-life conclusion.”
I’ve pretty much shown that they *don’t* logically entail the pro-life conclusion, but go on.
“But there are three different kinds of pro-choice positions, depending on which of the three pro-life premises is denied.”
It’s always dangerous to put people into definitive categories, for oftentimes one doesn’t fit in any,
but go on.
“The scientific premise is that the life of the individual member of every animal species begins at conception.”
You NEVER SAID THIS before in your essay until now!
A: And can you cite this source anywhere?
WHERE does it say this?
D: he says it’s a “truism”
“(This truism was taught by all biology textbooks before Roe and by none after Roe; yet Roe did not discover or appeal to any new scientific discoveries.)”
What the hell is a truism?
A: “a self-evident, obvious truth.” (Dictionary.com.)
D: So, it’s not a truism then.
A: “a statement which is pliantly true; a proposition needing no proof or argument;”
Yeah, no.
D: Regardless of whether you define ‘life’ as beginning at conception,
you have yet to show that this lifeform is a person.
and seeing as we’re nearing the end of this, I don’t think you will.
“In other words, all humans are human, whether embryonic, fetal, infantile, young, mature, old, or dying.”
Yes, A=A!
But you didn’t show that B,
B being an embryo
is in any way the same as an adult human!
A: Or even a child or infant.
D: mhm
but let’s not get into that here.
“The moral premise is that all humans have the right to life because all humans are human.”
Your tautology skills never cease to amaze me.
“It is a deduction from the most obvious of all moral rules, the Golden Rule, or justice, or equality. If you would not be killed, do not kill. It’s just not just, not fair. All humans have the human essence and, therefore, are essentially equal.”
DISAGREE!
THE GOLDEN RULE IS INHERENTLY FLAWED!
So, basically,
you’re saying,
If you would not be killed, do not kill,
so therefore, the inverse of that is,
if you would be killed, kill.
So by the golden rule,
Suicidal people have the right to murder!
A: SWEET.
Good news for meeee.
D: hahaha
A: That’s not funny.
D: *hugs*
A: Your girlfriend just insinuated she’s suicidal.
(I’m not, go on.)
D: okay, good.
So, yes, golden rule is wrong.
Perhaps that’s why this society is so messed up!
We derive our morality from a flawed principle.
It should not be “Do unto others as you would have them do on to you”!
That doesn’t work.
I’m trying to make up a new rule but failing.
A: Maybe people should make their own rules.
There shouldn’t *be* a set rule for humanity.
D: yes!
exactly!
*that’s* the problem!
It’s because of the golden rule that we have all these people forcing others to do what they don’t want to.
“I worship Jesus, therefore everyone else should”
“I would not engage in homosexual intecourse, therefore no one else should”
“I am personally appaled at destoying an embryo even though there’s no logical basis against it.
Therefore, no one else should be able to.
Is the logic that follows from the golden rule.
A: I’m fine with the golden rule being like, “Be nice to people if you want people to be nice to you”.
D: Yes.
A: But the problem is people take it to such massive extremes.
D: mhm
It’s a case of good intention but bad application.
The golden rule is not a sound basis for morality, is what I’m saying.
“All humans have the human essence and, therefore, are essentially equal.”
What is The Human Essence?
You have not defined that!
You just arbitrarily stated that humans have it!
Frogs have The Frog Essence!
A: Eew.
D: Coats have The Coat Essense
Envelopes have The Envelope Essence.
It is meaningless!
And again, he’s not shown that unborn fetuses are the same as born humans.
A: I don’t think he intends to.
D: Yeah, I figured.
A: “The legal premise is that the law must protect the most basic human rights. If all humans are human, and if all humans have a right to life, and if the law must protect human rights, then the law must protect the right to life of all humans.”
12.
The word “human” has lost all meaning.
D: gaaah!
Yes
If A=A…
nnng
A: If A = A then A = A, therefore A = A.
D: NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT A DOES NOT EQUAL A!
And the conclusion is stated from the outset in the premise.
It doesn’t even follow, actually! He never even established that the right to life is a basic human right.
I agree that it is, but I didn’t even notice that.
In any case, this argument says absolutely nothing.
“If all three premises are true, the pro-life conclusion follows.”
No.
No it doesn’t.
Not at all.
“From the pro-life point of view, there are only three reasons for being pro-choice: scientific ignorance—appalling ignorance of a scientific fact so basic that nearly everyone in the world knows it; moral ignorance—appalling ignorance of the most basic of all moral rules; or legal ignorance—appalling ignorance of one of the most basic of all the functions of law.”
Hm.. I’m surprised, actually.
He’s managed to go until just before this point without actually personally insulting me.
A: And then, here we go.
This is where I got pissed, remember.
“Scientific ignorance, if it is not ignoring, or deliberate denial or dishonesty, is perhaps pitiable but not morally blame-worthy. You don’t have to be wicked to be stupid”
So, he’s coming right out and calling us stupid.
But we’re not *wicked*, so that’s nice of him.
D: hahaha
adressing the author:
YOU have not shown me ANY scientific evidence that the state of being a person begins at conception.
If I were indeed, ignorant as you say,
then one would think that this lengthy essay would be a good place to enlighten me.
And yet,
over the course of it, you have not shown me one fact that could possibly change my or anyone’s mind.
A: And YOU. Are calling US. STUPID
D: apparently.
“…a scientific fact so basic that nearly everyone in the world knows it”
For one thing, you have not shown me any scientific facts.
Only tautologies and conclusions that do not follow from the premises.
I have yet to figure out, therefore, what it is you are refering to here.
Humans are humans?
A: He might me referring to the “fact” that humanity begins after conception.
D: A bird is a bird, and a squeebledy is a squeebledy.
I have no idea what else a squeebledy might be, but I know it’s a squeebledy.
A: A fucking equals A, okay, we fucking GET IT.
D: YES!
A: MAKE A POINT WHY DON’T YOUI
YOU*
D: So yes, in what is probably the umptenth and a halfth time that I’ve told you, I will tell you again:
You have *not* proven humanity begins after conception!
You have stated that “it’s a fact”, “everyone knows it”, it’s “self-evident”, “basic”, “a truism”.
That IS NOT PROOF!
A: You refer to people who dispute it as just “skeptics” who deny that apples are apples.
APPLES MAY BE APPLES, BUT HUMANS ARE SO MUCH MORE COMPLEX.
Oh, here’s one.
Is an apple seed an apple?
If an apple seed is an apple, then a fetus is a human.
D: I would say that it has the capacity to be an apple, but is not yet an apple.
A: Yes,
And, after it has been planted, there is a window of time when it is still not yet an apple, and hasn’t taken root yet.
So that is not killing the apple if you remove the seed.
D: you could say that it’s an apple tree once it pokes up out of the ground.
A: That’s fine.
But an apple seed is not an apple.
*That* is a truism, sir.
D: *kiss*
A: I love you too
D: Couldn’t have said it better myself.
A: So, yes.
Shall we go on?
D: yes.
next quotation:
“If you believe an unborn baby is only ‘potential life’ or a ‘group of cells,’ then you do not believe you are killing a human being when you abort and might have no qualms of conscience about it.”
One of his rare semi-intelligent moments there.
He admits, right there, that it’s possible for some people to believe the unborn babies are not humans.
A: Wow, how remarkably open-minded of him.
We stupid people are very grateful.
D: yees
“(But why, then, do most mothers who abort feel such terrible pangs of conscience, often for a lifetime?)”
does not follow.
A: How do you know?
How the fuck would you know that?
D: I know!
He couldn’t possibly!
A: Never mind that he’s *male*.
D: mhm
pangs of conscience, regardless, may or may not actually show that something is immoral.
A: Like, I feel bad sometimes after I eat chocolate.
Does that make eating chocolate immoral?
D: All it means is that you *feel* that it’s wrong somehow
yes, exactly!
A: … Chocolate is yummy.
D: mmhm!
A: It’s just also bad for me.
And sometimes, I feel fat when I eat it. But that doesn’t mean it’s *bad*.
D: exactly.
A: That just means I’m an insecure mess.
D: *hugs*
You’re beautiful *kiss*
“Most pro-choice arguments, during the first two decades after Roe, disputed the scientific premise of the pro-life argument.”
Because it *has none*!
“It might be that this was almost always dishonest rather than honest ignorance, but perhaps not, and at least it didn’t directly deny the essential second premise, the moral principle. But pro-choice arguments today increasingly do.”
Dishonest how?
I’m lying to others in order to further the ‘pro-choice agenda’ now?
Or do you mean I’m just lying to myself, so that I can abort fetuses with a clear conscience.
A: See, the problem with this sort of person is that they’re *convinced* that those who disagree with them have some sort of “agenda”. The homosexual agenda, the pro-choice agenda…
Your opinion is not the be-all and end-all.
Oh boy, the next paragraph is the one with the camels!
(Which I do not understand AT ALL.)
D: Yeah, I’m getting to it, hold on.
“Perhaps pro-choicers perceive that they have no choice but to [deny the moral principle], for they have no other recourse if they are to argue at all. Scientific facts are just too clear to deny, and it makes no legal sense to deny the legal principle, for if the law is not supposed to defend the right to life, what is it supposed to do?”
“So they have to deny the moral principle that leads to the pro-life conclusion.”
A: “So pro-choicers believe they don’t have a choice.”
Doesn’t that… um… defy the whole… PREMISE of…
AAAH.
the stupid. it are consuming me.
D: Well, I already told you that I deny all your ‘principles’ in that they are all nonsensical and meaningless, saying nothing and convincing no one. But yes, I deny your basis of morality, and your “facts”.
And just because it’s so ridiculous, I’ll quote the metaphor again.
“This, I suspect, is a vast and major sea change. The camel has gotten not just his nose, but his torso under the tent.”
A: What in the FUCK does that mean?
D: If anyone who may read this wishes to do some sort of interpretation of that metaphor, that might be entertaining.
A: I mean… really, I think his entire argument can be discarded in light of this metaphor alone.
… seriously!
What the FUCK does that even MEAN!!
I think he put it in there just to confuse us!
D: the tent?
what tent?
and why the hell is a camel under it?
Pro-choice people are camels now?
How?
A: So, we’re stupid, lying camels.
by the sea.
Apparently.
We are lying, stupid, aquatic camels.
D: Aquatic Camel!
That’s awesome!
A: Fucking hell, I think I’m going to go shoot myself.
D: *hugs*
don’t shoot yourself, love, we’re almost done.
A: okay, okay.
D: “I think most people refuse to think or argue about abortion because they see that the only way to remain pro-choice is to abort their reason first.”
Hmm… well aborting your reasoning skills didn’t seem to stop you from writing this argument.
A: I see wat u did thar.
D: hahaha
Woah, this came out of left field:
“Or, since many pro-choicers insist that abortion is about sex, not about babies, the only way to justify their scorn of virginity is a scorn of intellectual virginity. The only way to justify their loss of moral innocence is to lose their intellectual innocence.”
A: Who are these pro-choicers he’s talking to?
I’d like to meet some.
D: I have no idea
hahaha
They scorn virginity, apparently.
A: Boo virginity!
Let’s have promiscuous sex, and then copious amounts of surgery to get rid of the podling that will inevitably develop!
yes, THAT is what I want to happen.
(Nooo.)
D: and we have thousands of dollars to burn.
Apparently.
A: Nng.
It actually *hurts* me.
D: I know
The sheer stupidity.
Which is far worse that mere ignorance.
If, you know, we actually had it.
So having sex is now a ‘loss of moral innocence’, in case you missed that.
A: I got it.
I don’t particularly want to be morally innocent.
D: Noo.
Not to mention he didn’t state from which moral system *that* derives.
I’m pretty sure he’s religious.
A: All pro-lifers are.
ultimately, it goes along with pregnancy being part of sex, which is a sin, which means NO ABORTION FOR YOU.
You live with god’s punishment!
D: hahahaha
Anyway, what the hell do you think this means?:
I’m ‘intellectually guilty’?
A: No.
No, I think it means the idea of being pure.
You’re innocent if you haven’t done anything.
So you’re intellectually innocent…
if you don’t know anything.
D: Ah, yes.
Let’s all eat the apple.
A: This suddenly makes a LOT of sense.
D: I mean, really.
Who the hell wants to be ignorant?
A: Eternal sin, versus eternal ignorance.
Ignorance is bliss.
I BET YOU *ANYTHING* THAT PHRASE CAME FROM THE BIBLE.
D: “If the above paragraph offends you, I challenge you to calmly and honestly ask your own conscience and reason whether, where, and why it is false.”
Umm, yeah, I just did.
It’s false in several places.
most every sentence, in fact.
A: That is, the parts we can *comprehend* are false.
D: yeah
I suppose ‘meaningless’ is a separate truth-category from ‘false’.
Ahhh
the thirteenth,
and final section.
except the last one.
Which has no number, for some reason.
Perhaps he likes 13.
14 is unlucky, you see.
It used to be 13, but, you know, inflation and all.
A: LMAO
OHGOD.
You make me die, in a good way. *kisskisskiss*
D: yay!
*kisskisskiss back*
fishfishfish!
And Aquatic Camel!
he swims with the fishfishfish.
A: Of course.
Now get on with it, honey, I’m sure our audience of, um, me, is very anxious to see the rant against– *deep threatening voice* SECTION THIRTEEN.
D: alright then.
“The most likely response to this will be the charge of dogmatism. How dare I pontificate with infallible certainty, and call all who disagree either mentally or morally challenged!”
umm, yes, actually.
Wow.
A: I know.
That’s what I kind of like/hate about this guy.
He calls us SO PERFECTLY.
D: He actually correctly predicted my responce for a change
he never ceases to surprise me.
A: Asshole.
D: Adressing author: so yes, that’s me. How will you answer that?
“All right, here is an argument even for the metaphysical skeptic, who would not even agree with my very first and simplest premise, that we really do know what some things really are, such as what an apple is. (It’s only after you are pinned against the wall and have to justify something like abortion that you become a skeptic and deny such a self-evident principle.)”
Oh, nope, you’re wrong again.
*previous paragraph should be in quotes*
A: I’ve been a skeptic since before I even heard of your stupid apple idea.
D: No one is saying A DOES NOT EQUAL A!
yeah, I know
also, listen to what he says here:
here’s an argument for people who would deny my premise: HOW COULD YOU DENY MY PREMISE!?
oh, no wait, sorry,
I thought that was a question.
The actual argument’s on the next paragraph.
A: ouch. nice one, love.
D: “Roe used such skepticism to justify a pro-choice position. Since we don’t know when human life begins, the argument went, we cannot impose restrictions.”
A: Totally.
D: I would say that since we don’t know when human life begins, (and we don’t), and there is strong evidence that a fetus can NOT think and feel like a born human can, then people have no right to restrict other’s choices on the matter.
*others’
As it has NOT been shown to be morally wrong.
And until you have a reason for something to be wrong, it is not wrong.
You have not given us a reason.
A: You cited ONE source, that has been proven to be inaccurate.
D: Yep.
“(Why it is more restrictive to give life than to take it, I cannot figure out.)”
The issue is not ‘giving’ or ‘taking’ life; it’s about choice, and whether one of the choices is wrong.
“So here is my refutation of Roe on its own premises, its skeptical premises:-” I think you’re confusing two types of skepticism here. “Suppose that not a single principle of this essay is true, beginning with the first one. Suppose that we do not even know what an apple is. Even then abortion is unjustifiable.”
Apples have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING,
YOU
SILLY
PERSON
but, go on…
“Let’s assume not a dogmatic skepticism (which is self-contradictory) but a skeptical skepticism.”
…right
A: *gigglefit*
D: “Let us also assume that we do not know whether a fetus is a person or not.”
We don’t.
A: So let’s move on.
D: “In objective fact, of course, either it is or it isn’t (unless the Court has revoked the Law of Noncontradiction while we were on vacation), but in our subjective minds, we may not know what the fetus is in objective fact. We do know, however, that either it is or isn’t by formal logic alone.”
So it couldn’t possibly be a person in some ways but not a person in others?
Well, I suppose to truly be a person it would have to be a person in all ways.
so, yes.
Either it is or it isn’t.
Brilliant.
“A second thing we know by formal logic alone is that either we do or do not know what a fetus is. Either there is ‘out there,’ in objective fact, independent of our minds, a human life, or there is not; and either there is knowledge in our minds of this objective fact, or there is not.”
Define “know what a fetus is”.
If you mean “know whether or not it is a person,” then, yes, you just said that.
Obviously there’s an objective fact.
The universe can’t just be undefined.
Unless it’s quantum stuff, but yes, not for big things.
And there *is not* knowledge in our minds, else we would not be arguing.
There *can not* be knowledge of this until we *define* what a person *is*.
And we both agree on it.
You have not attempted to do this.
“So, there are four possibilities:
1. The fetus is a person, and we know that; The fetus is a person, but we don’t know that; The fetus isn’t a person, but we don’t know that;
2. The fetus isn’t a person, and we know that. What is abortion in each of these four cases?”
umm…
I think you need to check your maths.
…
A: I know.
Ordered lists. UR DOIN IT RONG.
D: “In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.”
A: Fair enough.
Since we don’t know a fetus is a person, though, then it’s not murder.
you said yourself that we don’t know that.
D: mhm.
we don’t.
“In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don’t know that, abortion is manslaughter.”
A: He said that it wasn’t wicked to be ignorant, or “stupid”.
THEREFORE.
Abortion isn’t a wicked act. By your logic.
Since we *are* ignorant.
D: I would use evidence to point out the fact that the fetus *isn’t* a person by any reasonable definition of the term.
As we have plenty.
you said some of it yourself earlier.
A: … where?
D: how they don’t feel,
they can’t think
they are not *alive* in the strictest sense.
They are connected to the mother, essentially a part of her.
A: Right, yes.
They don’t breathe, either.
Even *trees* breathe.
D: So yes, if case 2 were indeed the case, it would be irresponsible, but not strictly immoral to have an abortion.
Case 3, the inverse of 2, is pretty much the same.
“Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism.”
It’s not a person and I know it isn’t.
It has nothing to do with scepticism.
What about objective evidence?
Which we *have*
Case 4 is, indeed, the case.
Therefore, By your own reasoning:
abortion is permissable.
The only way to deny it is to deny the evidence.
Face the fact: unborn fetuses don’t think.
They don’t feel
They are *not alive yet*
A: They don’t breathe!
D: To say that something that has only the *potential* to be a human has all the rights of a human, is like saying every single sperm and egg must develop into a human.
A: *is very proud of that point* And yes!
D: Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate…
Is how that song goes.
Ahh, Monty Python.
A: Mhmm.
And we saw how wonderfully THAT worked out for them.
D: hahahaha
*kiss*
A: So, yes.
D: Finally:
on “One Last Plea”
“I hope a reader can show me where I’ve gone astray in the sequence of 13 steps that constitute this argument. I honestly wish a pro-choicer would someday show me one argument that proved that fetuses are not persons.”
Done and done.
It was all of them, by the way.
“It would save me and other pro-lifers enormous grief, time, effort, worry, prayers, and money.”
A: I just want to mail this to him, and say, “Here you go.”
D: You’re welcome.
hahahaha
A: And, Mr Jerkface?
I fucking *dare* you to prove me wrong.
D: “But until that time, I will keep arguing, because it’s what I do as a philosopher.”
You ain’t a philosopher.
A: Prove *us* wrong.
D: Yes.
“It is my weak and wimpy version of a mother’s shouting that something terrible is happening: Babies are being slaughtered.”
FETUSES AREN’T BABIES!
They are different things!
Look it up!
A: Fetus: “the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.”
I.e. After the period of time in which an abortion can be had safely.
Baby: “an infant or very young child”
I.e. After it has been born.
Fetus: “the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.”
I.e. After the period of time in which an abortion can be had safely.
Baby: “an infant or very young child”
I.e. After it has been born.
D: Thanks, dear, for that clarification *kiss*
A: Y’welcome.
*feels kind of patronized*
*but okay!*
D: No, it’s a compliment.
I was patronizing the author.
A: Yes, I know.
D: “I will do this because, as Edmund Burke declared, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ “
And, finally, he goes right out and calls us evil.
A: He said we weren’t wicked!
Just stupid!
D: And then he calls us evil.
I know.
Make up your mind!
A: *kicks him*
D: *kicks him as well*
well,
this concludes this week’s episode of Aquatic Camel.
A: I do hope you’ve learned something.
D: Join us next week: our guest will be William Shatner.
A: REALLY??
DUDE, COOL!
D: hahaha!
A: That sounds… UTTERLY… fan… TAS… tic…
*read in shatner voice*
D: of course *kiss*
