Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Galaxiom]

I think you are obsessed with viewing everything you disagree with in the context of your view on religion which is why you can't help but raise this strawman.

Claiming that someone's position is a strawman without offering even the slightest counter argument is the action of someone avoiding the debate for which they have no answer. You have already lost this one.

Better yet, try to stop yourself from instantly viewing people that you disagree with, worthy of your contempt.

The only contempt I see in this thread is yours.

 

[rodmc]

If a female wants an abortion then they should have one.

Sod religion and half wits who spout on about morality. The female will have a reason for doing it and its not anyone else's business as to why.

Who cares if the embryo is a baby or just a blob? It's better to lose it rather than have an unwanted sprog.

This discussion is getting nowhere and is boring me. As do most of the inane posts here.

Col

dont post in it then, simples

 

[Dick7Access]

dont post in it then, simples

Right on!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ColinEssex]

dont post in it then, simples

You should have a capital "D" and an apostrophe in the word "Don't", and end it all with a full stop.

Still bored.

Col

 

[Dick7Access]

You should have a capital "D" and an apostrophe in the word "Don't", and end it all with a full stop.

Still bored.

Col

aRENT"T yOU cLEAVER>>>>

 

[rodmc]

You should have a capital "D" and an apostrophe in the word "Don't", and end it all with a full stop.

Still bored.

Col

fortunately the VBA environment doesnt care much for punctution, as long as the syntax is ok its good to go

 

[dan-cat]

Claiming that someone's position is a strawman without offering even the slightest counter argument is the action of someone avoiding the debate for which they have no answer. You have already lost this one.

My discussion has nothing to do with religion, never used it once in my conversation with Adam. If you would kindly withdraw this assertion then we can continue.

 

[Galaxiom]

My discussion has nothing to do with religion, never used it once in my conversation with Adam.

Yes but Adam did and it is an important point.

As far as humans are concerned, the view that human life is sacred and of the utmost importance is derived from religion. I don't adhere to this view - there's nothing special about humans.

If you would kindly withdraw this assertion then we can continue.

I compared your unsubstantiated assertion about "how the human mind works" with religious beliefs that elevate personal opinion to the status of universal truth and denigrate those who think differently.

Perhaps you would like to discuss how you came to your conclusion about "how the human mind works".

 

[dan-cat]

Yes but Adam did and it is an important point.

That makes two of you that want to introduce the topic. Not me, good day.

 

[Galaxiom]

The religious don't like to discuss their prejudices.

 

[dan-cat]

The religious don't like to discuss their prejudices.

I'm not religious. Never raised it in this thread. You're dancing with your own straw man.

 

[Galaxiom]

You demonstrated a religious attitude to the notion of "how the human mind works" and have offered nothing to counter my objection.

If it is a stram man then why don't you try to set fire to it?

 

[dan-cat]

You demonstrated a religious attitude to the notion of "how the human mind works" and have offered nothing to counter my objection.

If it is a stram man then why don't you try to set fire to it?

It's much more fun watching you grapple with your own inventions. Please, continue.

 

[Galaxiom]

It's much more fun watching you grapple with your own inventions. Please, continue.

Your rhetoric does nothing to conceal the flimsy foundation of your beliefs.

My perspectives are supported by logic. You have not even attempted to support your entirely unsubstantiated assertion about "how the human mind works".

 

[dan-cat]

If it is a stram man then why don't you try to set fire to it?

Actually, why not. I'm bored and the answer is quite ironic.

My opinion, believe it or not, is based on an argument that actually contests religion.

Let's see if you can follow it without projecting phantom "religious attitudes".

My opinion, and that is all it is, it is not a universal truth, is that the human mind projects qualities into the things it perceives and onto itself. This is a principle of existentialism, that existence precedes essence. The qualities of things are not determined by an independent higher authority rather they are defined by what perceives it.

If you had read more carefully my discussion with the example of the seed, you would have noticed my argument that the human mind projects the potential of the seed into it's very definition. A seed actually has more commercial value because of it's potential and it's potential comes from our projection of that quality into it. This is the very principle of existentialism, that entities do not hold their own qualities, they are not defined by God, rather that the human mind injects that quality into it.

Following on from this, the human mind builds qualities into entities not only with what it perceives that entity currently is, but also with a special anticipatory ability of what that entity could become. The human mind, in my point of view, nothing sacred about it, does this with all things it sees.

It views a bicycle and defines it not simply as a stationary mechanism of parts but also as a vehicle that can move efficiently.

It views a life prison sentence not simply as a punishment of a wrong-doing but also as a prevention of it recurring in the future.

It views the death of a child as more tragic not simply because it was more vulnerable but also because of the removal of it being able to flourish and become something more.

Now when I say that viewing an embryo as simply a clutch of cells is flying in the face of human thinking, this is the type of thinking that I mean. It has zero to do with being inhumane, cruel or religious.

It has to do with denying how we partly use our anticipatory abilities to define what we perceive. We do not see things solely as they currently are. We project qualities into entities with all our mental faculties which includes anticipation.

My opinion may be quite false and easy to dismantle but as you see, it's not based on religious thinking at all, in fact quite the opposite.

 

[Dick7Access]

Perhaps you would like to discuss how you came to your conclusion about "how the human mind works".

Let’s make this even more complicated, lets discuss how the human female mind works.

 

[Galaxiom]

My opinion, and that is all it is, it is not a universal truth, is that the human mind projects qualities into the things it perceives and onto itself. This is a principle of existentialism, that existence precedes essence. The qualities of things are not determined by an independent higher authority rather they are defined by what perceives it.

Thankyou for trying to explain your position.

However, even though you are invoking existentialism you continue to project your personal values as "the nature of the human mind".

Moreover the propositon that humans judge upon the potential does not automatically extend to everyone automatically considering the potential of the embryo as something that justifies its preservation.

Some would see the potential as another human on an overpopulated planet and another child to a family that cannot support itself already.

Indeed I know of families who parents are such miscreants that it was a great shame the embryos were not all aborted. The children are all drug damaged from birth, worthless antisocial burdens on society. I would be surprised if the eldest is not already in jail, just like his father.

 

[rodmc]

this place really needs a popcorn smiley

 

[dan-cat]

However, even though you are invoking existentialism you continue to project your personal values as "the nature of the human mind".

It's an opinion, entirely subjective and available for scrutiny.

Moreover the propositon that humans judge upon the potential does not automatically extend to everyone automatically considering the potential of the embryo as something that justifies its preservation.

I've never made any such argument. Read back on my conversation with Adam. Post 458

I'm not actually disagreeing with you. We do place varying degrees of importance on things. But your wording suggests, correct me if I'm wrong, that you do place some importance on it. Which is all I'm really arguing for. That this element of importance should not be dismissed out of hand but should be weighed up carefully with the other factors.

Some would see the potential as another human on an overpopulated planet and another child to a family that cannot support itself already.

Indeed I know of families who parents are such miscreants that it was a great shame the embryos were not all aborted. The children are all drug damaged from birth, worthless antisocial burdens on society. I would be surprised if the eldest is not already in jail, just like his father.

This entire argument actually conforms to my proposition of the workings of the human mind. You've drawn up several qualities of what both the world and the embryo might become and injected them into the definition of what it currently is. So if the parents are scuz-buckets does the embryo have lesser value than if the parents are respectable, healthy members of society? If so, how can this be accounted for if the embryo is simply a clutch of cells?

I proposed the same argument to Adam about his example of the commercial value of the seed and I'm doing the same thing with your example too.

I'll repeat, this is not a be-all argument to justify the preservation of an embryo. Rather an argument that we inevitably must consider it's potential when making this decision. To not do so is an error for the reasons I've described.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

This entire argument actually conforms to my proposition of the workings of the human mind. You've drawn up several qualities of what both the world and the embryo might become and injected them into the definition of what it currently is. So if the parents are scuz-buckets does the embryo have lesser value than if the parents are respectable, healthy members of society? If so, how can this be accounted for if the embryo is simply a clutch of cells?

I think thats worthy of a standing count 1. 2. 3.