Abortion

Thrasymachus wrote:

There is a huge demand for adoptions. People wait years to be able to adopt.

Then why the fuck are there approximately 1.5 billion children on this planet who are mal-nutritioned, many of them who will die a very painful life due to starvation?

No, the demand is far below the supply. That is why life today has become so meaningless for so many people.

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

There is no magical line at 3 months, or at any other time. The fact is that there is a categorical difference, as I said. Your attempt to draw an arbitrary line is just your attempt to avoid that fact.

No, I am not avoiding the fact.  I am stating my opinion regarding the topic.  No different than what you are doing.

You say no  and I say I have no right to say either yes or no if it isn't a result of something I did.

You are stating opinions, I am stating facts.

Fact 1: there is a categorical difference between a developing human being and a clump of skin cells.

Fact 2: there is no arbitrary line for when "life begins".

Fact 3: there is a huge demand for adoption.

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

There is a huge demand for adoptions. People wait years to be able to adopt.

Then why the fuck are there approximately 1.5 billion children on this planet who are mal-nutritioned, many of them who will die a very painful life due to starvation?

No, the demand is far below the supply.  That is why life today has become so meaningless for so many people.

You're conflating different issue here. Yes there are a billion starved children around the world, but that has nothing to do with demand for abortion. It has to do with a hundred other factors, not least of which is shitty and corrupt governments around the planet.

As I already showed you, the demand for adoptions in the US is incredibly high, and that includes foreign adoptions.

Thrasymachus wrote:

"It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 couples waiting for every one child who is placed for adoption."

http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families?cId=149

And many of those people want the child for no other purpose than a child credit for their taxes. They don't give a shit about the child. This has been documented over and over again.

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

"It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 couples waiting for every one child who is placed for adoption."

http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families?cId=149

And many of those people want the child for no other purpose than a child credit for their taxes.  They don't give a shit about the child.  This has been documented over and over again.

Where?

Thrasymachus wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

There is no magical line at 3 months, or at any other time. The fact is that there is a categorical difference, as I said. Your attempt to draw an arbitrary line is just your attempt to avoid that fact.

No, I am not avoiding the fact.  I am stating my opinion regarding the topic.  No different than what you are doing.

You say no  and I say I have no right to say either yes or no if it isn't a result of something I did.

You are stating opinions, I am stating facts.

Fact 1: there is a categorical difference between a developing human being and a clump of skin cells.

Fact 2: there is no arbitrary line for when "life begins".

Fact 3: there is a huge demand for adoption.

Those are opinions. Fact: an egg is an egg until it hatches.

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

There is no magical line at 3 months, or at any other time. The fact is that there is a categorical difference, as I said. Your attempt to draw an arbitrary line is just your attempt to avoid that fact.

No, I am not avoiding the fact.  I am stating my opinion regarding the topic.  No different than what you are doing.

You say no  and I say I have no right to say either yes or no if it isn't a result of something I did.

You are stating opinions, I am stating facts.

Fact 1: there is a categorical difference between a developing human being and a clump of skin cells.

Fact 2: there is no arbitrary line for when "life begins".

Fact 3: there is a huge demand for adoption.

Those are opinions.  Fact:  an egg is an egg until it hatches.

Human beings do not "hatch".

Not sure if you ever took a biology class or not.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

"It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 couples waiting for every one child who is placed for adoption."

http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families?cId=149

And many of those people want the child for no other purpose than a child credit for their taxes.  They don't give a shit about the child.  This has been documented over and over again.

Where?

Especially in the USA in states that provide very attractive welfare for child support.

There is no magical line but there is a physiological-scientific line, when the pineal gland is activated and the hormonal system becomes coherent.

It is my estimation that at that point, the organism becomes a human self-valuing. It roughly coincides with the development of a heartbeat, all happens around 6-8 weeks.

My position has for years been that this period represents the limit of an abortion that isn't actually killing a human, limited as its experience is.

I do not accept any kind of nominal, noumenal humanity, so for me the entity has to have certain biological feedback loops in order to be a human. That happens after 6 weeks. I do not think we can call something an entity with experience without certain independent functions that centralize it to itself, like what the pineal gland initiates.

My approach to these things is entirely scientific, based on biological definitions, and I would not dare to discuss it in other terms, because, to meat-eaters, the morality of killing/not killing is ambiguous at best, unless we consider human beings exempt from all natural categories, which as you know I do not.

I just ask that someone who aborts after 3 months when the being is in full activity, that she realizes she is doing something radical and bloody, and that there is suffering involved, suffering of a small being she has carried - and that she will never be quite the same afterwards.

A simpler argument, one I'd make to a woman: A heartbeat is significant in terms of when we consider a person to be dead, so it is also significant as to when it comes alive.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Human beings do not "hatch".

Not sure if you ever took a biology class or not.

This is true but you know exactly what I am referring to.

And no, what I listed are not "opinions".


"Fact 1: there is a categorical difference between a developing human being and a clump of skin cells.

Fact 2: there is no arbitrary line for when "life begins".

Fact 3: there is a huge demand for adoption."

You:  Those are opinions.


Really? You seriously think that those three points are not facts?

1) It is a fact that is a philosophical, logical, categorical and ontological difference. A developing human life is not the same as a clump of skin cells. Why? Because a clump of skin cells, even living ones, is not going to go on to create a new human being. It does not possess a new and unique genetic code, it is not a gestating and developing living being. An embryo is.

2) It is a fact that there is no line you can draw where life magically appears. 3 months? So you think at 12 weeks there is one second where the fetus is not a life, and then one second later it is a life? That is fucking stupid man.

If you think it is just an  "opinion" then feel free to demonstrate to us where exactly that line is, and why.

3) I already showed you that there is huge demand for adoption. I gave you the data, I can give you more if you need.

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

"It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 couples waiting for every one child who is placed for adoption."

http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families?cId=149

And many of those people want the child for no other purpose than a child credit for their taxes.  They don't give a shit about the child.  This has been documented over and over again.

Where?

Especially in the USA in states that provide very attractive welfare for child support.  

I meant, where is your evidence, where is this documented as you said?

I want to see the number so I can determine the percentage of adoptions that are legitimate versus those that are " for no other purpose than a child credit for their taxes.  They don't give a shit about the child" as you said.

But even regardless of that fact, it is still the case that my original argument stands. But again, I am interested in the numbers. Let us assume for the sake of argument that 50% of adoptions are " for no other purpose than a child credit for their taxes.  They don't give a shit about the child", as you said. That would be a serious problem that would demand we rework the adoption system and incentives there. But that doesnt change the facts of what I have already said. And even assuming 50% you are still going to have 16 legitimate families waiting to adopt for every one available baby.

Fixed Cross wrote:

There is no magical line but there is a physiological-scientific line, when the pineal gland is activated and the hormonal system becomes coherent.

It is my estimation that at that point, the organism becomes a human self-valuing. It roughly coincides with the development of a heartbeat, all happens around 6-8 weeks.

My position has for years been that this period represents the limit of an abortion that isn't actually killing a human, limited as its experience is.

I do not accept any kind of nominal, noumenal humanity, so for me the entity has to have certain biological feedback loops in order to be a human. That happens after 6 weeks. I do not think we can call something an entity with experience without certain independent functions that centralize it to itself, like what the pineal gland initiates.

My approach to these things is entirely scientific, based on biological definitions, and I would not dare to discuss it in other terms, because, to meat-eaters, the morality of killing/not killing is ambiguous at best, unless we consider human beings exempt from all natural categories, which as you know I do not.

I just ask that someone who aborts after 3 months when the being is in full activity, that she realizes she is doing something radical and bloody, and that there is suffering involved, suffering of a small being she has carried - and that she will never be quite the same afterwards.

A simpler argument, one I'd make to a woman: A heartbeat is significant in terms of when we consider a person to be dead, so it is also significant as to when it comes alive.

Okay, this is a rational perspective and I have no disagreement with it. I will still stay with my three months though. This is because it is likely that pregnancy will not be know for nearly a month and then confusion for a couple weeks before any rational thought can be made regarding a termination.

You're not forming arguments or ideas, you're forming feelings. This is deep feminist confusion on your part.

Thrasymachus wrote:

And no, what I listed are not "opinions".


"Fact 1: there is a categorical difference between a developing human being and a clump of skin cells.

Fact 2: there is no arbitrary line for when "life begins".

Fact 3: there is a huge demand for adoption."

You:  Those are opinions.


Really? You seriously think that those three points are not facts?

1) It is a fact that is a philosophical, logical, categorical and ontological difference. A developing human life is not the same as a clump of skin cells. Why? Because a clump of skin cells, even living ones, is not going to go on to create a new human being. It does not possess a new and unique genetic code, it is not a gestating and developing living being. An embryo is.

2) It is a fact that there is no line you can draw where life magically appears. 3 months? So you think at 12 weeks there is one second where the fetus is not a life, and then one second later it is a life? That is fucking stupid man.

If you think it is just an  "opinion" then feel free to demonstrate to us where exactly that line is, and why.

3) I already showed you that there is huge demand for adoption. I gave you the data, I can give you more if you need.

The data you presented is a sham. It has nothing to do with the woman who became pregnant.

I ask you again, if there are so many people waiting to adopt why are there so many kids living on the streets?

The line I draw is my opinion, just as your opinion is that abortions should not be allowed.

Therefore, if I get pregnant I will abort prior to three months and if you get pregnant you must give birth to the monster within.

Fixed Cross wrote:

There is no magical line but there is a physiological-scientific line, when the pineal gland is activated and the hormonal system becomes coherent.

I see no reason to scientifically or psychologically conclude that this represents an absolute line. At best we can use it as a marker to form an assumption of value, namely our valuing the developing being as a human or not. I do not agree with that because I consider its, again, wholly arbitrary.

What is it about having a heartbeat and an activated pineal gland that grants human-status? I honestly do not know. I don't think that is a workable standard at all.

Rather, my approach is to make a logical distinction, as I have said there is a categorical difference here. That categorical, ontological difference holds regardless of where you want to draw a line from one second to 9 months in the developmental process.

Quote :

It is my estimation that at that point, the organism becomes a human self-valuing. It roughly coincides with the development of a heartbeat, all happens around 6-8 weeks.

My position has for years been that this period represents the limit of an abortion that isn't actually killing a human, limited as its experience is.

That's fine if that is your standard, but again, it is still arbitrary. Unless you can philosophically articulate precisely why, in ontological or logical terms, the pineal gland and heartbeat are the indicators of human-ness in the developmental process.

Quote :

I do not accept any kind of nominal, noumenal humanity, so for me the entity has to have certain biological feedback loops in order to be a human.

Again, what is it about those particular feedback loops that matters so much? I am tempted to say you are doing exactly what Sisyphus is doing here, namely choosing an arbitrary stage in the larger developmental process in order to avoid the fact that there is already a logical, ontological, categorical distinction in place.

Quote :

That happens after 6 weeks. I do not think we can call something an entity with experience without certain independent functions that centralize it to itself, like what the pineal gland initiates.

My approach to these things is entirely scientific, based on biological definitions, and I would not dare to discuss it in other terms, because, to meat-eaters, the morality of killing/not killing is ambiguous at best, unless we consider human beings exempt from all natural categories, which as you know I do not.

We eat meat, yes. That doesn't mean we cannot self-value our own species and kind over the species and kind of animals we eat.

Quote :

I just ask that someone who aborts after 3 months when the being is in full activity, that she realizes she is doing something radical and bloody, and that there is suffering involved, suffering of a small being she has carried - and that she will never be quite the same afterwards.

Yes, many women experience deep regret and depression after having an abortion. The ones who do not experience that are simply soul-dead already.

Quote :

A simpler argument, one I'd make to a woman: A heartbeat is significant in terms of when we consider a person to be dead, so it is also significant as to when it comes alive.

There are plenty of other factors as well other than heartbeat, but no, not having a heartbeat is not scientific or otherwise proof that someone is dead.

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

And no, what I listed are not "opinions".


"Fact 1: there is a categorical difference between a developing human being and a clump of skin cells.

Fact 2: there is no arbitrary line for when "life begins".

Fact 3: there is a huge demand for adoption."

You:  Those are opinions.


Really? You seriously think that those three points are not facts?

1) It is a fact that is a philosophical, logical, categorical and ontological difference. A developing human life is not the same as a clump of skin cells. Why? Because a clump of skin cells, even living ones, is not going to go on to create a new human being. It does not possess a new and unique genetic code, it is not a gestating and developing living being. An embryo is.

2) It is a fact that there is no line you can draw where life magically appears. 3 months? So you think at 12 weeks there is one second where the fetus is not a life, and then one second later it is a life? That is fucking stupid man.

If you think it is just an  "opinion" then feel free to demonstrate to us where exactly that line is, and why.

3) I already showed you that there is huge demand for adoption. I gave you the data, I can give you more if you need.

The data you presented is a sham.  It has nothing to do with the woman who became pregnant.

I wasn't talking about women who become pregnant, I was talking about the demand for adoptions. You are conflating again.

Quote :

I ask you again, if there are so many people waiting to adopt why are there so many kids living on the streets?

Because we have fucked up social systems, corrupt governments, poverty, and shitty parents. And, again, that is a separate issue that also needs to be worked on.

Quote :

The line I draw is my opinion, just as your opinion is that abortions should not be allowed.

No, my statement is one of a categorical, ontological difference that defines a developing human being as part of a separate class than, say, a clump of skin cells or whatever else. You still have not even addressed this point of mine.

Quote :

Therefore, if I get pregnant I will abort prior to three months and if you get pregnant you must give birth to the monster within.

More meaningless feminist babble.

Thrasymachus wrote:

I meant, where is your evidence, where is this documented as you said?

I want to see the number so I can determine the percentage of adoptions that are legitimate versus those that are " for no other purpose than a child credit for their taxes.  They don't give a shit about the child" as you said.

But even regardless of that fact, it is still the case that my original argument stands. But again, I am interested in the numbers. Let us assume for the sake of argument that 50% of adoptions are " for no other purpose than a child credit for their taxes.  They don't give a shit about the child", as you said. That would be a serious problem that would demand we rework the adoption system and incentives there. But that doesnt change the facts of what I have already said. And even assuming 50% you are still going to have 16 legitimate families waiting to adopt for every one available baby.

I don't need evidence in order to present my opinion.

And again I ask, if there are so many people waiting to adopt then why are there kids starving, even in America?

I will agree that it is very likely that adoption systems are screwed up. There is no easy fix for the likely problems that exist.

And I have known of women who gave birth and the only thing they cared about was that they didn't violate the rules so that they could continue to get welfare and child support money.

There is no shortage of humans on this planet. In fact, the over-population by humans are causing the extinction of many other species.

" That's fine if that is your standard, but again, it is still arbitrary. Unless you can philosophically articulate precisely why, in ontological or logical terms, the pineal gland and heartbeat are the indicators of human-ness in the developmental process. "

But I did that in the same post.
It makes them self-referential.

Obviously, there are no absolute standards for anything. A cancer has just as much objective right to exist as a human. So I do what I can with values and facts that exist for me and work them to standards.

As you know I see logic as a derivative of value, objectivity as a derivative of subjectivity, and the absolute as beyond these two, as principle.

Per principle, there are no exceptions or privileges, What exists, exists, because it is able to. And aborted baby does not fit that category. There is no morality involved at that point. I insert it where I will, because I happen to be one of these existing entities, I have that power, and right.

Fixed Cross wrote:

" That's fine if that is your standard, but again, it is still arbitrary. Unless you can philosophically articulate precisely why, in ontological or logical terms, the pineal gland and heartbeat are the indicators of human-ness in the developmental process. "

But I did that in the same post.
It makes them self-referential.

Obviously, there are no absolute standards for anything. A cancer has just as much objective right to exist as a human.

Not from the perspective, and self-valuing, of a human being. And we are human beings.

Fixed Cross wrote:

" That's fine if that is your standard, but again, it is still arbitrary. Unless you can philosophically articulate precisely why, in ontological or logical terms, the pineal gland and heartbeat are the indicators of human-ness in the developmental process. "

But I did that in the same post.
It makes them self-referential.

I didn't see where you demonstrated exactly why 1) pineal gland activation, and 2) heartbeat, are the necessary and sufficient determinants of being-human.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

" That's fine if that is your standard, but again, it is still arbitrary. Unless you can philosophically articulate precisely why, in ontological or logical terms, the pineal gland and heartbeat are the indicators of human-ness in the developmental process. "

But I did that in the same post.
It makes them self-referential.

Obviously, there are no absolute standards for anything. A cancer has just as much objective right to exist as a human.

Not from the perspective, and self-valuing, of a human being. And we are human beings.

As you know Ive never accepted that category.

I am more like a cat than like a Clontin supporter. Please dont try to tell me Im not, I wont take kindly.

Sisyphus wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

I meant, where is your evidence, where is this documented as you said?

I want to see the number so I can determine the percentage of adoptions that are legitimate versus those that are " for no other purpose than a child credit for their taxes.  They don't give a shit about the child" as you said.

But even regardless of that fact, it is still the case that my original argument stands. But again, I am interested in the numbers. Let us assume for the sake of argument that 50% of adoptions are " for no other purpose than a child credit for their taxes.  They don't give a shit about the child", as you said. That would be a serious problem that would demand we rework the adoption system and incentives there. But that doesnt change the facts of what I have already said. And even assuming 50% you are still going to have 16 legitimate families waiting to adopt for every one available baby.

I don't need evidence in order to present my opinion.

I am just curious, since you made an objective, factual claim. I am sort of wondering why you would believe something without having, apparently, any evidence for that belief.

I already assumed a 50% rate going for what you said, and in that case I already showed that even with that, with HALF of all adoptions being basically for shit reasons, you still have a situation where there are 16 families, with legitimate reasons wanting to adopt, for every 1 baby available to adopt. I don't see you wanting to address that point.

Quote :

And again I ask, if there are so many people waiting to adopt then why are there kids starving, even in America?

I already answered that. Bad parenting, poverty, corruption, bad social systems and bad incentives. The list could go on and on. But all of that is equivocating on the central issue here.

And even with all that corruption and shit, it is still the case that families waiting to adopt must wait a very long time. Criminalize abortion and you can go a long way to solving that.

Quote :

I will agree that it is very likely that adoption systems are screwed up.  There is no easy fix for the likely problems that exist.

And I have known of women who gave birth and the only thing they cared about was that they didn't violate the rules so that they could continue to get welfare and child support money.

I have never known a women like that.

Quote :

There is no shortage of humans on this planet.  In fact, the over-population by humans are causing the extinction of many other species.

Again, mere equivocation on your part. You seem to conflate just about everything with everything else, rather than address the actual point.

Fuck human beings. I dont give a shit for that category.

Most human beings lack integrity, which means they lack being.

Ive said since 2011 that I think most humans do not exist.

the species is at best a template for potential entities, it's not actually made up of entities.

A healthy cat and a philosopher are alike, they have value-integrity. A Clontin supporter is more like a worm. It doesn't matter in how many pieces they are broken, they keep glubbering on blindly.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

" That's fine if that is your standard, but again, it is still arbitrary. Unless you can philosophically articulate precisely why, in ontological or logical terms, the pineal gland and heartbeat are the indicators of human-ness in the developmental process. "

But I did that in the same post.
It makes them self-referential.

Obviously, there are no absolute standards for anything. A cancer has just as much objective right to exist as a human.

Not from the perspective, and self-valuing, of a human being. And we are human beings.

As you know Ive never accepted that category.

I am more like a cat than like a Clontin supporter. Please dont try to tell me Im not, I wont take kindly.

Yes, if there is one point we always disagree on, it is this. I hold to a categorical being-human-ness, that this makes sense logically and ontologically, whereas you do not hold to that. But this is a philosophical difference here, and thus highly appropriate for us to hold to and discuss our respective arguments.