Interesting that when you asked me for a non-abortion debate conception of 'human being' and I presented the census you then introduced the methodology of the census before later on claiming that it was me who was 'fascinated by the methodology' - my point always being about what the census is estimating, not how they do it. You also declared it 'obvious' you were speaking scientifically, not politically - and when asked for a counter-example provided a piece of US legislation...

Now rather than responding to the argument I came up with (easily) which meets your stipulated requirements you are instead chasing ganstaman to identify what 'medicine' is. Note that despite your objection to characterising abortion as medicine being patently silly, I reframed the argument leaving medicine out - would you like to debate whether abortion is a procedure for a while too?

BTW, I just re-read your definition of medicine. It involved the "diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease" so it would have been easy enough for you to start off telling me that preventative medicine is clearly covered here. However, more to the point would be Bunny's example -- focusing only on diseases completely ignores phsyical injuries.

You are telling me that all doctors (yes, all, go find me one that disagrees that trauma surgery is medicine, and that orthopedics is medicine, and that forensic pathology is medicine -- this can deal with diseases or with injuries) are misuing the word that defines our field? The rational response to this would be to question the definition, not the usage of the word.

I don't claim that he doesn't believe what he says, only that it is a purposeful strategy of pro-lifers not to talk about their views about women's rights unless pressed.

Bear in mind I don't think any pro-lifer, if there were a fire in a fertility clinic, would bring out a tray of embryos before saving a clinic worker. The "pro-life" position is sincere, but it isn't coherent. On the other hand, the critique of feminism and the sexual revolution is completely coherent (even though it is wrong).

Old news, I know, but then again, mankind moves on and "oaths" become "anti oaths" devoid of any representation of living realities.

Hippocratic Oath; which appears to have morphed into the "Law of the Lawyer", a fleeting ephemeral foray into a magic mush of transient corruptibility.

http://nktiuro.tripod.com/hippocra.htm

Plenty of other definitions of medicine do include injuries, but I could not find one definition of medicine anywhere that could reasonably said to include the abortion procedure(pregancy is neither a disease or an injury).

Pathology is the science...medicine(amoung other things) is the application of that science.

You are claiming that cosmetic surgery is actually cosmetic medicine because some doctors claim they are preforming medicine when they do a boob job. You haven't made an argument why this is true so there isn't anything for me to attack.

My definition of human being is quite simple. Its very hard to argue that a fetus (and I am including everything from embryo to birth) is not an individual organism of the human species. You on the other hand have this complex and fuzzy "definition" of human being. I cannot fathom why you add all this complexity and fuzziness to what it means to be a human being except as a justification to kill something.

as an outside observer who has followed this thread for awhile, can we please let bunny and stu debate for a little while without derailing their argument? stu stopped responding to bunny at his convenience a couple of pages ago.


edit: stu, like bunny said, he came up with a simple argument that meets your stipulated requirements. your response?

Another red herring argument from you. There is a big difference between saving a life and purposely killing it.

Bunny came up with a rational argument that has no real world meaning or application.

how does

1. people should be allowed to choose what procedures are performed on them.
2. abortion is a procedure.
3. people should be allowed to choose if they want to get an abortion.

not have any real world meaning or application?


i don't want to derail anymore after this post....hopefully bunny will be back

I don't think it really matters how someone came to a prochoice position. If you had a conversation with people who formulated a prochoice position(by any means) they could not logically be able to continue to have a prochoice position without accepting one of the two premises.

1. It is sometimes okay for one human being to kill another human being for matters of convience.
2. A fetus is not a human being.

As far as I can tell you are calling that a consequence of the prochoice position while I am calling it fundamental to it. I think my choice of fundamental is better because those premises are not the result of a prochoice position but something which is essential to it(whether or not the prochoicer realizes it).

We don't allow terrorists to sew bombs into their bellies...such an act requires surgical procedures....but nevertheless if you then asked that pro-choicer who used your argument these questions:

Is a fetus a human being?
Is it okay to sometimes kill one human being for the convience of another?

He would have to either say a fetus is not a human being or that it is sometime okay to kill one human being for the convience of another. His intial argument isn't essential to his position so it doesn't have any real world meaning or application.

The only way for individual people to come to grips with abortion is to obtain a knowledge of reincarnation and karma . The consideration that there is an individual soul prepared and ready to enter into the conceptualized fetus has to come to the fore in one's decision. It doesn't mean that abortions will stop but knowledge of the spiritual nature of Man, his sojourn after death and pre birth presentation will alleviate the moral tone of this important question.

The questions of rape, and other untoward happenings that may have caused the pregnancy will continue but seeing Man as a spirit/soul being can help.

At present the questions appear to be earthly considerations which certainly can be ascribed to the science of our times and make no mistake about it, modern medicine is the most materialistic( to be clear, matter and its supposed characteristics) of all the sciences or scientific endeavors, save perhaps the lawyers.

Not with respect to the terms of the hypothetical.

The reasons why you would save the clinic worker are exactly the same as some of the reasons why many pro-choicers don't think fetuses and embryos and zygotes have a right to life that trumps the woman.

Or is there such a thing as an organism that IS a human being when his mother decides to kill it but is NOT a human being when someone decides not to save it?

This isn't true. In your hypothetical the pro-lifer saves the clinic worker because the pro-lifer values the life of the clinic worker over the lives of the embryos. But this is different then claiming it is okay to kill one human being over the convience of another. You are conflating the two.

I value my life more than yours and would save myself in a fire before I save you but that doesn't mean I think it is okay to kill you to get your parking space.

Holding the position that it is wrong to kill one human being for the convience of another simply doesn't preclude you from continuing to value life differently when faced with decisions on who to save in a disaster.

You are missing the point, which is that different lives do indeed have different values.

Once that point is established, is it really much of a stretch to say that justifications for killing life A, with little value, need not be as compelling as justifications for killing life B, which has more value? (Hint: this is a big part of the justification for capital punishment and whom you can and cannot kill in a war.)

I didn't miss it...I acknowledged it. Now in actually it might not be the case but the reality is as individuals we do values some lives more than others. I value the life of my daughter way more than say Jibninjas(sorry Jib).

Much of a stretch is still a stretch. Your pro-choice position depends on you believing it is okay to kill one human being(whom has little value to you) for the convience of another(who has more value to you). The Nazi's did not value the lives of the jews(very much) but by your thinking the Nazis could justify their actions(even though you might abhore the act). Thats not to say we americans were much better...we would have stood by and did nothing if Japan and Germany did not declare war on us.

Pro-lifers value human life differently but they do place some minimum value on all human life. That by virtue of being a human being it is wrong to be killed for the convience of another. Prochoicers on the other hand do not hold that human beings have some minimum value that makes it wrong to kill one for the convience of another. Your hypothetical fails to expose the pro-lifers as being hypocritical simply because they might favor saving the clinic worker over a tray of embryos.

See if you can come up with a plausible hypothetical were a pro-lifer chooses to actively kill some embryos for the convience of an individual and then you might have a compelling argument....otherwise drop this futile attempt to obsfuscate the issue.

sure - I didn't say it was complicated, I said it was incorrect.
I don't know if that's true or not - since nobody has bothered to say why such a determination matters. I suspect it would become relevant if we addressed the question:

"what kinds of entities are entitled to be considered in moral questions?"
Indeed. Since the concept is fuzzy in reality. How do you define a crowded elevator? 10? 12? 20? What a fool! I have a simple definition. It's one - anything else is arbitrary. Sound familiar?
perhaps if you read the detailed reasons I provided earlier rather than continuing to pretend you can discern my motives?

Or we could cut to the important question...(do I need to ask it again?)

And yet I apply it.

The fact it sometimes comes into conflict with other lines of argument is why the subject of ethics exists.

I don't hold either of those views (using your designation of human). Reality crash.

What "okay" means depends on how we make moral decisions....





What kinds of entities are entitled to be considered in moral questions?

I started a whole new thread for that question....You are welcome to participate in it.

This is analogous to saying that "If you have a triangle with sides of 3,4 and 5 centimetres, it contains a right angle" is fundamental to pythagoras's theorem. It just isnt. You dont have to believe this in order to come to think pythagoras's theorem is true - it's a consequence.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying it's a consequence. I think you're justified in saying it's a consequence but not in labelling it fundamental. Premises and logic are what are fundamental to any rationally derived position - you cannot say that a 'misunderstanding of darwin' is a necessary condition of accepting the argument from design. It's a consequence of holding the view that the argument from design is persuasive - it's not fundamental to the position though.

I dont accept either of your claimed 'fundamental beliefs' because I dont think they're well defined yet and I'm not sure whether I believe them or not. My agnosticism wrt those is not relevant to my support for legalised abortion - since I have reached that position without taking a view on your supposedly 'fundamental' and 'necessary' premises.

Are you going to stop telling me why I think things now?

You seem to miss the fact that the Nazi argument works counter to your position, not in favor.

It's only if one thinks that 'human' is what matters that one may say they are justified in genocide once they reclassify jews as non-human. In my opinion, they are still obligated to treat them morally - even if they are non-human. It's only you who should conclude that if their reclassification is correct then they are behaving morally in committing genocide since "no humans were harmed in the making of this atrocity".