CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 18
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 19
Total: 19

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

Human Life International: Pro-Life Missionaries to the World
http://www.hli.org/index.php/component/content/248?task=view

Their site has pamphlets with valuable information and Pro-Life talking points on the following issues:

Pro-Abortion Violence: Setting the Record Straight
   
Why Women Abort
   
The Abuse of Population Control

Negative Effects of the Pill

Does Welfare Reduce Abortion?
   
Condoms
   
Fetal Development
   
Men & Abortion
   
Maternal Deaths
   
Obama v Life I

Some links to a few intellectually mature/sophisticated articles on the morality of abortion.

1989 "Why abortion is immoral"
- ►wisc.edu [PDF]
D Marquis - The Journal of philosophy
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/shapiro/Phil101/Marquis.pdf


Must We Have Full Moral Status Throughout Our Existence?
A Reply to Alfonso Gómez-Lobo
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/kennedy_institute_of_ethics_journal/v017/17.4degrazia.html

David Boonin: A Defense of Abortion

http://books.google.com/books?id=YhcosxnhtJ8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=David+Boonin+A+defense+of+abortion&lr=

CONTEMPORARY
DEBATES IN
APPLIED ETHICS
http://uwch-4.humanities.washington.edu/Texts/Philosophy%20Guides,%20Analysis%27%20and%20Resources%20%28ver.2%29/Contemporary%20Debates%20in%20Applied%20Ethics%20%28Contemporary%20Debates%20in%20Philosophy%29.pdf#page=26

Abortion and the Margins of Personhood
http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/lawjournal/39_2/03LittleVol39.2.r_2.pdf


Francis Beckwith
Critical Review of Boonin: A Defense of Abortion
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/84557__742038027.pdf

‘Absolutely vile’ advice column tells men how to pressure pregnant women to abort

CNA STAFF, Jul 8, 2009 / 07:17 am (CNA).- A men’s advice column advising men how to encourage their pregnant girlfriends to abort provides an unsettling glimpse into the realities of abortion. One pro-life leader characterized the column, which highlights some men’s personal desires to avoid the burdens of parenthood, as “a primer for coerced abortion.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16492

[growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of]

Ginsburg: Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html

That was an odd/revealing statement.  The main point revealed throughout the latter part of the interview is the fact that she doesn't recognize the life and rights of a fetus.  She should be asked what the cut off point is for a woman to "decide" when to terminate her child, 6 months, 9 months, 1 year, 2 years, 17 years?

"She should be asked what the cut off point is for a woman to "decide" when to terminate her child, 6 months, 9 months, 1 year, 2 years, 17 years?"

When I was younger, conservatives were generally just as good as good at logic --if not better --as anyone. Sadly this is no longer true.


The continuum fallacy (also called the fallacy of the beard[1], line drawing fallacy, bald man fallacy, fallacy of the heap, and the sorites fallacy) is an informal logical fallacy closely related to the sorites paradox, or paradox of the heap. The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy


No one can identify a moment at which a growing heap of hay becomes a haystack -- but it still becomes one.

No one can identify the exact point that a developing human embryo acquires rights but it still makes sense to say it does acquire them as it develops.

It is sheer lunacy asking for "cutoff point," free from any hint of arbitrariness,  in a developmental process. Of course, the old cliche is that law is a blunt instrument -- it must arbitrarily make decisions in some cases.

We give the right to vote to 18 year-olds but not to 17 year-olds. Arbitrary? yes but not entirely irrational.

12 week embryo no right to life but a late-term fetus begins to have one -- a bit arbitrary but not at all irrational.



I can remember very clearly listening to ohio republican legislators in hearings in the state house back in the late 70s and early 80s express support for abortion because it controlled the numbers of certain unwanted populations.

IS, I was being sarcastic, however, you seem to be quite serious in devaluing human life when comparing it to trivial matters such as haystacks.  This is not a political issue that waivers on a whim as you suggest.  This is an issue of undeniable truth. 

You cop out by stating that no one can identify when an embryo acquires rights.  Some claim ignorance to benefit their own personal motives while committing genocide.

Children are living from the moment of conception.  With advances in science and technology an infant can survive outside of the mother's womb earlier and earlier.  If a fetus does not have any rights at 24 weeks and can be aborted, does it not have the right to medical assistance if born premature?

For as intelligent as you make yourself seem, you don't seem to be able to ascertain the truth in any matter.

"IS, I was being sarcastic, however, you seem to be quite serious in devaluing human life when comparing it to trivial matters such as haystacks. "

Well of course I'm comparing the process of a growing haystack--i.e, someone piling up straw to form a haystack-- to the process of the development of an embryro. Haystacks share very few characteristics with embryos but they do share some. Heck they share characteristics with you and me.

Some haystacks are located in America. So am I. All are bigger than a flea. So am I. All are smaller than a planet. So am I. All are located on the surface or near the surface of the earth. So am I. All have a mass less than a locomotive. So do I. There are innumerable characteristics we share.

Does this suggest that haystacks and human beings share all characteristics and have equal value. Get serious.  No, it doesn't suggest that haystacks are people and have any rights. And no, I'm not devaluing myself when I list the characteristics I share with a haystack.

It is not always easy to tell when someone is being serious or sarcastic.

I take it that this claim -- "you seem to be quite serious in devaluing human life when comparing it to trivial matters such as haystacks " is meant to be serious.

If you are being serious you are seriously confused.

My point was to focus on the concept of a continual process through time.

When does a immature boy become a mature man?
When does a seedling become a tree?
When does a person losing his vision become (legally) blind?
How big does a "planetoid" have to be to be a planet?

Haystacks, in your opinion, may be trivial - But I was not talking about haystacks I was talking about the concept of a continual process and referred to haystacks to illustrate such a process.

You are confusing the topic with a mere illustration.

"You cop out by stating that no one can identify when an embryo acquires rights. "

I don't understand much of idiomatic English.  I looked up "cop out"
Cop out is an idiom meaning to avoid taking responsibility for an action or to avoid fulfilling a duty.

I don't understand your claim. I am willing to take responsibility for all my beliefs and for everything I say.  I am willing to revise my beliefs when appropriate.


I understand the arbitrary nature of the legal acquisition of rights and responsibilities. Once a person gets a drivers license he has acquired a legal right to drive a car (all things being equal).  What if we changed the law to require that only people over age 35 could get a license to legally drive a car? Wouldn't you think there is something wrong with that? -- the difficulty is deciding what the law ought to be.

Eighteen year-olds have the right to vote. What if we changed it to only people with PhDs have a right to vote. Isn't there something wrong with that? Isn't using age totally arbitrary? Probably not. How do we know it isn't totally arbitrary though?

"If a fetus does not have any rights at 24 weeks and can be aborted, does it not have the right to medical assistance if born premature?"

Does any person have a right to medical assistance?

If you mean by 'right' what jurisprudence refers to as 'strong rights'-- that the legal guardian / parent / representative of the fetus can demand medical care -- I don't know if anyone has rights to medical care in that sense.


I generally view medical care as a privilege or a liberty right and not a strong right.
If I can pay for it and if someone wants to take my money and give it to me then I get medical care. If not, I don't. I can't demand anyone to give it to me.

Obviously, our legal system requires doctors and hospitals to come to the aid of people in critical situations. Whether this means we have rights to medical care in general is another matter.

Vote 2008
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/61wj4tJICcc&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/61wj4tJICcc&rel=0</a>

Imagine 1
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/V2CaBR3z85c&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/V2CaBR3z85c&rel=0</a>

Imagine 2
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/oIBZ-kJ6XAc&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/oIBZ-kJ6XAc&rel=0</a>

Imagine 3
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/kxH7CUhHkug&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/kxH7CUhHkug&rel=0</a>

Two fundamental points.

(1) Yes, your religion may tell you that some or all living things (plants and animals), even in their embryonic stages, are sacred.

I can pay respect to many deeply held religious views. However, please do not expect me to share all such religious views.


(2) All three of these clips emphasize potentiality. You may be a potential president of the United States. Please do not think you have any right to exercise the powers of the presidency merely because you have this potential.

Potentiality gives you potential rights. Unless you can provide me with a realistic counterexample, I will take it as a fundamental principle that potentiality does not give you any actual rights.

1.  It's an acknowledgment of absolute and fundamental truths which is incompatible with your predisposition for relativism.

2.  Are you stating that some have more rights than others?  My view is constant, irrespective of development, stature, race, gender, age, etc.

[Vocal Observer]

Vocal Observer

1.  It's an acknowledgment of absolute and fundamental truths which is incompatible with your predisposition for relativism.

--------------------------------------------------

You seem to be confusing metaphysics (theory of the ultimate nature of reality)  with epistemology (our knowledge of reality).

In fact I am an out and out realist with respect to reality. I believe that there are fundamental and absolute (please define 'absolute' for me) truths.

The heleocentric theory of the planetary system is a good candidate for a fundamental truth.
The germ theory of disease is another.
Einstein's theory of relativity.
The theory of Evolution.

These might well be fundamental truths.

But human beings are notoriously fallible creatures. We make mistakes. We have beliefs that turn out to be false. So I will remain modest in any claim I make about reality. Since I am not an infallible being I will not claim that my beliefs are not subject to revision and possible rejection.

This may be relativism but it is a very modest and benign form of it. Relative to the best that human science and reason can ascertain, these are fundamental truths. This is a form of relativism but not an unreasonable form of it.

----------------------------------------
Vocal Observer:
2.  Are you stating that some have more rights than others?  My view is constant, irrespective of development, stature, race, gender, age, etc.

Exactly-- some people have more rights than others.  A six-year old child has very few rights. You and have more rights than a six-year old. He doesn't have the following rights:

to vote;
to emigrate to another country;
to get a drivers license;
to get a license to practice medicine;
to join the bar and argue a case before the Supreme Court;
to marry;
to get a divorce;
to get a pilots license;
to purchase alcohol or tobacco;
to serve on a jury;
to have sex with an adult;
to join the military;
to serve in the United States Congress or as president.

Your point illustrates my point on part 1. During most of human history rights have been conceptually tied to gender and race. It was considered a fundamental truth (what does it mean to say an absolute truth?)  that women do not have the same rights as men.

Human beings are fallible and prone to have false beliefs. These traditional beliefs about gender and race have been (and  I believe rightly) rejected.

Our knowledge claims are always subject to revision. This may be relativism but it is a very modest and benign form of it.

I believe it is reasonable to tie at least some rights and possibly many rights to stages of human development or maturity.

I suspect that you have no problem with tying these rights to stages of maturity.

It doesn't logically follow that all rights are tied to maturity. The right to life is still up for debate.

At least, however, I believe I have shown that it is not unreasonable to tie rights to stages of maturity and that it is not absurd, on the very face of it, to tie the right to life to a state of development.

I'm still waiting for single example of right tied to potentiality.

Further reply to your charge that I have a "predisposition for relativism."

It was reasonable to charge me with relativism because I said "I can pay respect to many deeply held religious views."



Relativism is sometimes (though not always) interpreted as saying that all points of view are equally valid, in contrast to an absolutism which argues there is but one true and correct view. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism)

This definition is not very good but by this Wikipedia definition count me as an absolutist with respect to truth.

The theory of Evolution is either true or it is false. If it is true then all theories that are inconsistent with it are false.

The theory that God created heaven and earth and all of earth's creatures is either true or false. If it is true then all theories that are inconsistent with it are false.

I can still respect you and your beliefs even if I believe your beliefs are false.

What are your thoughts on the unborn having the right to the opportunity to actualize their potential?

What are your thoughts on the unborn having the right to the opportunity to actualize their potential?

Is there any point to this?  

Your question assumes identity between a zygote-embryo-early fetus and a person. To my knowledge, no one has stated anything close to a convincing argument in favor of this identity.

More important, there is a fatal flaw for any anti-abortion argument if you assume this identity -- it turns the argument into a circular argument. The point being debated is whether the embryo has rights. Of course you and I have rights. So, if you just assume that I am identical to the embryo that I developed from then it follows immediately that the embryo has rights. Puff, there is no argument. We've simply assumed that embryos have rights by assuming that embryos are identical to adult human beings.

Here is an argument against that assumption of identity.

Granted, a zygote develops into an embryo -- it has that potential. Does it have a right to actualize this potential?

This doesn't make any sense to me.  Do acorns have a right to develop into trees? Does an egg have a right to develop into a chicken?

Seems to me that only sentient beings have rights and zygotes, acorns, and chicken eggs aren't sentient beings.
(I realize that this premise requires argument to support it. One problem at a time though.)

You are and I am  a essentially thinking, sentient persons-- that is what we are essentially -- other physical characteristics are not part of our essential being or nature -- being a certain height, weight, bipedal, hearing, seeing . Any being that is not a certain height weight etc. could still be you or me.  You could lose both legs, a finger, an arm, your hearing and your sight -- but you would still exist --essentially you would still be the same person that had two legs,  could see and hear.

When you were 10 years old x number of years ago you had all sorts of characteristics that you no longer have. But you are still they same person as that 10 year-old.

But any non-sentient being is not you. Any non-sentient being lacks something that is one of your essential properties -- being sentient. Sure an embryo has the potential to develop into a sentient being but it isn't actually sentient.

Since an embryo is not sentient -- Neither you nor I were ever an embryo.

Then, given additional arguments that things like rocks and plants and non-sentient beings in general don't have rights, it would follow that the human embryo has no rights including no right to develop its potential.