Technically it's not an ad hominem fallacy
It would be an ad hominem fallacy if he claimed that your position is wrong because you're an idiot.
He simply called you an idiot without making any claims about your argument. This means that he did not commit an ad hominem fallacy, he just insulted you.
Probably not.
To say that one is both pro-life and pro-choice results in the following - I believe that all innocent human beings have an inherent right to life which we must protect. The unborn fetuses are innocent human beings. Therefore we need to protect them. However, I also believe that mothers should have the right to kill their unborn children for whatever reason (medical, economics etc). So, while I think that murder is wrong, I understand that other people may want to kill other people for whatever reason.
I do not want to shove my beliefs down others - if a mother wants to kill her children, that's not my business. But nevertheless I think fetuses have a right to life.
That's one example, but these things vary between different nuances in both pro-choice/pro-life views. Contradicting elements may also arise: a fetus has a right to life (pro-life), but doesn't have a right to life (pro-choice). A fetus is a human being (pro-life), but it is not a human being (pro-choice).
And there are christians, who do meet the goals they've set and I too can point to countless examples. Consequently, there are countless christians who cannot live up the moral duties that are expected of them for one reason or another. Yet in either case, we must distinguish a philosophy from its adherents and judge the philosophy on its own merits.
In the same way, I can't sweepingly condemn feminism simply by pointing at the likes of FEMEN, Chanty Binx and other rabid man-hating women. Why? Because there are respectable feminists with legitimate views as well, not to mention that feminism is a distinct abstract view that needs independent investigation.
Teenage pregnancy and the spread of STD-s is the direct outcome of the liberalisation of sexual norms. The more marital institutions have weakened, the more promiscuity has risen and with it all the ills that come from people having sex everywhere. So while it's commendable that teen pregnancy and the spread of STD-s are lowering in some areas, it can be argued that these problems were caused by the weakening of christianity and of its institutions (such as marriage) in the first place.
Teen drug use - again, depending where you look. What about non-teen drug use?
Obesity - certainly, low-quality food plays a part here. However, there are also no limits in a secular consumerist society, how a person should control their appetite. Especially when you have rabid social justice warriors calling an end to fat shaming in the name of a more diverse and egalitarian society.
All while society becomes more secular (aka less Christian).
The onus is also on you to demonstrate, why these problems are lessening because of secularism, and not because of mere rising living standards.
There is nothing wrong with having sex when you want. There's something called a condom. You might have heard of it. Use it as any sensible person would and pregnancy and STDs are not a concern.
This is factually incorrect, since there are STD-s that a condom does not protect you against. STD-s that spread merely by skin-to-skin contact (such as syphilis, genital herpes, HPV) aren't prevented by condoms. Condoms can also break, so there is no 100% guarantee of safety. You also assume that people actually will consistently use condoms, which is also patently false.
You can't link obesity to secularism as you get fat Christians.
I linked obesity to consumerism, which is certainly more of a secular value than a religious value. Fat christians simply tell us that not everyone is willing or capable to maintain control over their desires - merely being a christian in no way makes you immune to vices. Whether individual christians can actually live a virtuous life has absolutely no bearing on what values christianity actually espouses.
Also Christian ways of disciplining yourself is gouging your eye out to prevent lust. How is that a good idea? Christianity just says to suppress these emotions not tackle them or try and pacify them through a proper method.
It says that there are good, moral ways to quench these desires - if one desires sex, he should seek in the context of marriage. It's not just suppressing them, it's also about finding the right outlet.
Christianity, amongst others, encourages discipline - we must subjugate our desires to our intellectual control.
The problem with modern consumerist society is exactly that human beings have become slaves to their desires - if you want to eat, you eat; if you want to have sex, you have sex; if you want to drink, you drink etc. Problems like obesity, teenage pregnancies/pregnancies out of wedlock, spread of STD-s, alcoholism, greed, drug addictions are some of the clearer examples of what are are created by the endless pursuit of trying to satisfy every desire you have without any sort of restraint. Trying to control these desires is apparently perceived as prudish.
Lust, gluttony etc and all the vices that follow from them, such as obesity, tell us that without discipline, you only damage yourself.
Oh, cool, a list that doesn't involve the law. You sound pro choice.
Did you miss the part about the capability to enforce laws? Obviously, if a country can't enforce it's own penal code, then people won't be mind breaking those laws given there is no threat of retribution.
People engage in unsafe sex because they aren't taught about the consequences. Abortion only occurs in pregnant women. If you try to prevent pregnant women you can prevent abortion. If on the other hand you ignore the factors that lead to pregnancy and ban something that only happens after an event you didn't try to stop, it won't matter what the law says.
Whether abortion is legal or not has absolutely no bearing on the pregnancy rate or the quality of sex education. Making abortions illegal won't make people get pregnant more, making it illegal also won't necessarily decrease the quality of sex education.
Also, can you link me that part in the African paper that said that the net abortion rate hasn't changed and isn't contingent on laws.
The abortion rate is dependent on:
- The amount of hospitals;
- The overal fertility rate;
- The capability to actually enforce the law in a consistent and effective way;
- Poverty level;
- The education and mobility of the population;
- Quality of the abortion services (if there are any);
- Expenses
- Size of the population
I clicked on the Africa stats which said the abortion number was unchanged and the Columbia one that said it went up, so I don't know what you are talking about.
Can you find that part for me?
And Columbia's abortion rate went up after banning it? How the hell does that make sense?
Well, for one thing, these studies examine third world countries, which for obvious reasons cannot be compared to western countries. Mostly because of low enforcement of law, lack of resources and shabby reporting.
Secondly, both cited studies primarily deal with unsafe abortions. What they're saying is that illegalizing abortions causes the number of unsafe abortions to go up, but the net amount of abortions still goes down.
And this is where pro-lifers fundamentally disagree with pro-choicers. You consider the fetus to have no rights, because it is not sentient etc, whereas prolifers think sentience is irrelevant to whether human beings have rights. So, the main crux of the issue is whether the fetus has rights or not.
Your original argument won't convince any pro-lifer, because the argument sees the issue purely from a pro-choice perspective and is based on pro-choice assumptions that pro-lifers simply do not agree with. It's these assumptions (that the fetus is not morally equivalent to born human beings) that you'll have to argue for.
Pro-lifers consider abortion to be murder. To them, you're basically saying that ''It's dangerous for murdererrs to kill their victims. We should make it safer for the murderer.''
So what if abortions wouldn't be safe? There is nothing bad about making murder harder and more dangerous for the perpetrator.
I gave you a scenario, where laws can deter people from committing certain actions. As I understand, you don't disagree with the argument, but you don't like the scenario.
Locations like those are ripe in history, especially where people were divided into classes. If an aristocrat murdered or beat a slave or some lowly peasant, nobody bat an eyelid. It was okay. And such cases were not uncommon at the time at all. In many countries, especially third world countries, it's still the case.
You seem to imply that laws in no way affect our behaviour. Are you trying to say that if there were no laws, nothing would change in human behavior?
Lets assume there are no laws against murder.
So a guy is robbing someone's house and gets caught. The robber now goes through a quick cost/benefit analysis - if I kill the homeowner (get rid of the witness), it won't worsen my legal situation in any way and actually increases my chances of getting away with robbery. Since robbery nets me a nasty punishment (8-15 years in my country), I now have an incentive to kill the homeowner in order to increase my chances of avoiding justice.
However, if there are murder laws, the robber knows that if he kills the homeowner, his legal situation worsens dramatically. What's worse? 12 years of prison or life imprisonment? Should I gamble and murder the homeowner and hope I get away with? Maybe I should just run away? Thus the robber could, ideally choose the optimal solution, which is to run away.
One of the functions of criminal law is to make sure that crime is unprofitable - that the potential costs far outweigh the potential benefits. So, for the deterrent to work, the laws must be enforceable and there must be a very good chance that the perpetrator will be caught and punished - and the perp knows that. Murder laws are just one example - you can take any penal provision.
While criminological theory can be weighed and criticized, it is obvious that criminals do at least some elementary level cost/benefit analysis. A mugger probably won't restrain himself and is willing to inflict far higher degrees of violence if he knows that it won't make his legal situation any worse. Or take rape for example and assume that there were no murder laws - the rapist can then reason that there really is no downside to killing off the victim. It won't make his situation any worse and actually increases the chances of him getting away with it - in this case, murdering someone only benefits the rapist.
Are you implying that penal laws do not deter anyone? That if we got rid of them overnight, nothing would change?
You fundamentally do not understand the pro-life position. If you did, you would not make such an argument.
For pro-lifers, the unborn is a human being with the right to life. To them, abortion constitutes murder. What you're essentially saying is that ''Well, people (mothers) are going to murder others (unborn) anyway. So, we might as well make sure that at least the murderer doesn't get hurt.''
There is nothing wrong about making murder more difficult and dangerous for the perpetrator. In fact, it is a very good deterrent.
You cannot kill other innocent people to save your own life, especially when you yourself created the danger in the first place. If the mother had voluntary sex, then she placed herself along with the fetus in harms way voluntarily.
If the baby is going to die, then abortion is not okay. We're all going to die some day, that doesn't mean it's okay to kill us prematurely. If I shoot a patient in the head with a shotgun, and then tell the authorities that ''Well he had terminal cancer, he was going to die anyway very soon'', then the cops most likely won't take me seriously.
The mother suffering long term damage is hers to bear. Emotional or physical trauma does not justify the killing of another innocent human being. I cannot kill someone just because his continued existence causes me emotional damage. If economic damage is enough to kill someone, why can't parents kill their already born kids? After all, these kids don't work and are only a drain on resources.
I'm not an american, so I don't know or care about the US justice system.
If we operate from formal legal theory, then there is no discrimination. Gays can still get married to a member of the opposite sex, and nobody will deny them that right simply for being gay. It's just that gays are not interested in exercising this right. In the same way, heterosexuals cannot get married to the same sex as well. Therefore, there is no discrimination.
Under the banner of equal treatment, gays are asking for the creation of a totally new right - the right to marry a member of the same sex.
I can't comment on due process and equal protection, cuz I don't know shit about the US legal system.
Abortions would still not be okay. Pregnancy is a reasonably foreseeable outcome of sex and no contraception is 100% effective. As such, you need to take responsibility for your actions and the reasonably foreseeable consequences, that follow from them.
Secondly, if we start from the premise that the fetus is a human being with the right to life, then whether contraception fails or not is completely irrelevant. The right to life outweighs the temporary limited freedom of the mother.
Your emotional rhetoric has very little to do with the actual analogy at hand - that atheism is a religion in the same way as not being a stamp collector is a hobby.
As it turns out, by your own admission, that atheism isn't simply a lack of some belief - it's actually an ideology with a very clear purpose, which is to wipe out religion.
You didn't answer my question. This isn't about percentage, this is about principle.
Does it makes sense to have clubs and societies about not playing football, or not liking cake or clubs about not being a stamp collector? If atheism can't be called a religion, because that would be the same as calling not collecting stamps a hobby - then it stands to reason that it makes no sense to have atheist clubs or whatever.
It doesn't even make sense to have the word ''atheist'', because we don't define people by negation. I don't describe myself as a non-football player, because that doesn't tell you anything about what I actually am.
Does it make sense to have separate forums dedicated to discussing atheism? By your view it doesn't make sense, because you don't generally make forums for non-anime watchers and non-book readers or whatever.
And despite that, atheism is something that is constantly talked about, justified, criticized, embraced, rejected etc. Whole movements have rallied under atheist banners etc etc. So it's pretty disingenuous to say that it's something akin to not-collecting stamps when it clearly has ideological connotations. If people are defining themselves through atheism, organizing clubs to discuss atheism, then clearly there is more to it than just not-stamp collecting.
No, she shouldn't be allowed back. Her contribution to the site has been primarily harmful and she managed to transform this site from a debating arena to a personal message board.
I'm sorry, but during her stay here the content of the site suffered an immense drop in quality - the first page was mostly flooded with trite, empty and annoying personal statements that had nothing to do with any particular topic. Those ''I wrote a poem'' or ''I'm a badass bitch'' or whatever type of topics are detrimental to a site that's supposedly dedicated to the exchange of worldviews. People come here for the sole reason of testing their views, policies and philosophies. They don't come here to socialize as in some other message board, because there are other places for that. Seeing these topics flooding the main page sends the message that this site isn't serious about debating, it may actually send the message that debating here isn't even the main focus.
As long as this sort of content with questionable value is tolerated - this site will always live in the shadow of other debate sites such as debate.org, which take debating far more seriously and have a far stricter policy on what constiutes as garbage content. I'm not saying that you need to moderate the shit out of this place, i'm saying that clearly certain topics have nothing to do with actual debating and should be reserved for some other websites.
It is clear that a lot of people have left this site or have assumed a very passive, lurking role. It's because they feel alienated, they feel that this site has been hijacked by people who use it as a platform to vent their personal issues.
TLDR - This site can't grow any real credibility as long as it tolerates users such as Dana, whose only real contribution to this site is flooding it with garbage content that has no place in a site dedicated to debating.
Personally I would have wanted to see Channing Tatum as the new Batman. I feel he has both the body and the jaw to pull off Bruce Wayne.
http://
Sense, to make, is something. Treasured, yet notwithstanding; while a man may pretend to understand, in truth it escapes. Though skill, it looks upon - troubled by its interlocutors and constabularies - the message strives towards crypticity.. it remains.
See, I can do that too.
No, I would say they do not have the right to die. The right to life is inalienable - nobody can give it to you, nobody can take it from you. You cannot even surrender it. If I make a public statement that I revoke my right to life - that doesn't mean that any random guy can come and kill me.
Suicide devalues the intrinsic value of human life and human dignity. It subjectivizes human worth and makes the value of human life contingent on the moods of the individual.
Is child molestation objectively bad? Is the killing of innocent human beings objectively bad? Is slavery objectively bad?
If they are, then why? What are we going to appeal to when we say that the above mentioned things are always bad, without exception? Clearly we cannot appeal to moral relativism or subjectivism, we need to appeal to some standard of moral realism and if we do that, we can safely say that there are things that can be called objectively good or bad.
If we, however, take the approach that nothing can be called objectively good or bad - well, if it isn't objective then by its very nature it becomes subjective. If it becomes subjective, then it becomes arbitrary - good or bad cease to exist. All that will be left will be preferences. To say that something is wrong is simply to say ''I do not like it'' or ''I am socially conditioned to not like it''. From a relativistic view, you can't ever condemn anyone for anything, because ultimately to condemn someone you have to appeal to your own biases and relative views.
Taking into account the cultural context and general attitude towards traditions and national pride, it would not make sense to intervene in Russia's war on homosexuality.
The thing is that the bill passed by Putin enjoys tremendous public support and is probably one of the few instances, where the Kremlin reflects public opinion and interests. This basically means that any sort of intervention and forcing Russia to recognize homosexual marriages will most certainly be undemocratic.
It's a waste of time to try to intervene - gays and LGBT's have virtually no local support in Russia.
Props to Russia for being one of the few countries that has the backbone to stand up against cultural and moral relativism.
If the arguments can be applied, then they should be applied. It's the basic principle of logical and intellectual consistency. If there is a countercase, or counterargument - then make them, but do not arbitrarily neuter arguments simply because you don't like where they'll take you.
For example - while the consent argument applies to incest as well, I feel that because of argument X, incest should still be banned regardless of the fact that it takes place between consenting adults.
Children and animals can give implict consent. It is questionable why animal consent is necessary in the first place considering we never care about their consent when we kill them for food, leather, scientific research, entertainment and so on.
Birth defects happen only if they procreate and even then, the chances are slim. Should people who have hereditary diseases/genetic susceptibility to certain diseases be banned from having sexual unions?
While you said that you wouldn't address any of the objections to your statement - I feel that almost every point you made can be addressed.
The main difference between homosexuality and all of these terrible things that people really shouldn't do, is that consensual sex between two consenting, adult males or females doesn't have any real negative consequences.
This is very important. Keep in mind that if consent is the prime criteria by which you decide, what sort of sexual conduct/what sort of unions can be considered ethical, then you still should have nothing against incest - consensual sexual practice between two related adults. Whether procreation in incestuous relationships leads to genetically damaged offspring - that is beside the point and needs to dealt with a separate argument. It would be inconsistent to appeal to the consent argument and then arbitrarily not extend it to incestuous couplings.
Secondly, consent is a definitive part of your idea of what constitutes a moral union. A zoophile can just come along and make up their own definition of marriage/relationships that do not require informed consent, only implicit consent. This is the sad after-effect of conceeding that sexual conduct/the definition of marriage can be redefined to suit whatever needs the redefiner has. If gays can do it with marriage, why can't anyone else?
I need you to read the previous sentence and really grasp its meaning. Anyone can pass along STDs if they have them, and I understand that homosexuals are supposed to be more sexually active and promiscuous than straight individuals, but there's a whole subculture of straight punks who fuck like animals, too.
Passing on STDs is irrelevant to the issue at hand, because passing on STD's regardless of whether you are straight or gay is bad, so it doesn't make sense to criticize homosexuals in this regard. I agree. Protection can always be used.
Children can't be trusted to offer consent because children are generally innocent and don't know what the fuck they're doing. Sex can be mentally scarring and can fuck a kid up for life. They don't know any better.
Yet some children are very mature for their age. Treating children as de facto idiots is far too broad. A 15 year old child, in this day and age, is probably already fully sexually active and is fully aware of the possible consequences. As long as she consents, where is the harm?
Also, the way our society treats pedophilia - that may actually be more harmful than the act of pedophilia itself. Children are mentally scarred because society tells them that they should be - that they were violated, something horrible was done to them etc etc. There are many different societies and tribes, where children are seen as sexually available from a very young age - yet in these societies, these children do not become unstable emotional wrecks, they become fully functional adults. That is because they do not see the act of sex as something inherently bad, but as something good - coming of age for example.
While nobody actively supports pedophilia, the philosophical groundwork for defending it is already being out down by liberals and what not.
Pregnancy from incest produces a more shallow genepool and can cause children to have serious birth defects and intensify disorders that are already present.(Although I will submit you don't really have a risk of pregnancy from gay incest, but I still really hope that's not a line people decide to cross. Eugh.)
First of all, your primary criteria was consent - incest is perfectly capable of consent. You even said that passing on STDs is not a valid counter-case, yet you say that incest should be discouraged because there is a chance that birth defects may occur? So because birth defects may occur - that is a good reason to ban an entire spectrum of relationships, but the chance of passing on STDs is not a good enough reason? Why? Isn't this just cherry picking between diseases and ailments?
I'm sorry, but by this argument pretty much anyone who has some hereditary disease, or someone who has certain illnesses running in the family (higher chance of heart-attack, cancer etc) should not be able to have a sexual relationship, because the said relationship may produce a damaged child. You suddenly have a lot of people who can no longer reproduce. Eugenics making a comeback.
Thirdly, it takes generations of inbreeding to produce any sort of noticeable genetic damage. Since you said that what differentiates homosexuality from these other things is consent - then ultimately I see no reason why you would be against incest. In fact, incest is hypothetically even better than homosexuality, because it can still produce perfectly healthy children and thus ensure the continuance of society while homosexual unions do not ensure the continuance of society. It's a dead end.
Fourthly, if you support abortion then there is already an answer for incest couplings. They can also use protection.
By also alluding to the fact that you are disgusted by gay incest (eugh) - this shows that it really isn't about neither consent nor procreation - you just don't happen to like incest couplings. Isn't this just predjudice? Is it okay to predjudiced against siblings in love, but politically incorrect to be against homosexual unions?
So how about zoophilia. Or. However the fuck you spell it. Sex with animals. Animals don't really have the intelligence to offer consent, and they'll fuck anything offered if they're horny enough. I'm just going to say it's wrong because someone's taking advantage of something that can't offer consent, but it's also dangerous as hell. People have died trying to screw the wrong animal.(Or getting screwed by the wrong animal.)
Why do I need consent to have sex with an animal, but not need their consent to kill them for food, kill them for leather, kill them just for thrill of the hunt, test chemicals and medicines on them, imprison them in zoos, force them to do things for our entertainment, force them to breed, force them to produce offspring, take away their children, take them for a walk, ride them and so on and so on?
You even said it yourself - I'm just going to say it's wrong because someone's taking advantage of something that can't offer consent, but it's also dangerous as hell.
You can't even make that claim unless you are a hardcore animal rights advocate. It's intellectually dishonest in the face of how animals are generally treated - as property, as commodity that can be bought, sold and exploited. We do not delegate human morals to animals.
Desecration of a corpse? Yeah that's going to piss off some loved ones who'll want some retribution. Kind of a no-brainer. Although there's always the risk of catching a disease from a rotting corpse.
If I sign a contract voluntarily that will give my body after my death into the ownership of some person who can do with it whatever he sees fit - where's the harm? Just because my family may be offended - that is not a good enough reason to void the contract. What if my family is offended when I wish to cremate my body instead of having a christian burial? Should they get what they want or should I get what I want for my own body?
Catching a disease is the risk of the necrophile. It may happen and it may not happen. I can get diabetes from eating too much candy, but that's a risk I'm willing to take because for me the pleasure I derive outweighs the risk. For the necrophile it would be the same. There is no objection to it. If the necrophile fucks corpses in his private home, without hurting anyone and he got the corpse legally - what's the harm?
You can compare them if you want, I guess. But. There's no other reason to do it than to be a straight up dick or a bigot. I'm not going to answer any disputes on this wall of text, because you should really be ashamed of yourselves if you're really going to try to make a logical, reasonable person's dispute, and religious disputes just make me giggle.
Clearly, it is not as obvious as you make it to be. You do not apply your arguments in a logically consistent manner, you apply them only when it is convenient to you (consent and incest for example). And this final statement is basically just a fancy way of saying - if you disagree, then there is something wrong with you.
I think it is time to open your eyes and see where this sort of philosophy leads you.
People who justify homosexuality, but at the same time want to be against pedophilia, incest, zoophilia or any other sort of questionable behavior - they are essentially the kind of people who want to eat their cake and still have it.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to use arguments such as:
Love is love
It doesn't hurt anybody
What goes on in my bedroom is my own private business
Morals are subjective
And so on and so on.... then you could at least have the moral and intellectual integrity to take your principles and premises to their logical conclusion, regardless of whether you personally like the conclusion or not. Sadly (or fortunately), all these arguments when taken to their logical end - all of them can be used to justify the above mentioned perversions.
If you start to arbitrarily discriminate between the groups of people, who you wish to defend (gays in this case) and the people you do not wish to defend (incesties, pedos, zoos) - then you are no longer arguing from principle. You are simply pandering to a crowd you happen to like.
No, it is actually logically consistent and intellectually honest to compare homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. Pretty much any pro-homosexuality argument can be applied to at least one of these perversions - incest, pedophilia, zoophilia and so on,
If we have to create a universal standard of morality - then by its very essence it isn't universal. If it is man-made, then it is arbitrary - plain and simple.
Universal morality should be something that isn't created, exists independently of humans and thus cannot be changed by humans.
While the ''gay agenda'' may sound ridiculous, it really isn't that far off, at least in the context of my own country. It's grossly obvious that this isn't about equal rights - it's about getting societal recognition and moral acceptance for their personal lifestyles.
No minority should be able to demand the redefinition of societal institutions in order to facilitate their personal lifestyles. Often it is done through force and what is often called liberal bigotry - that if you do not support gays and maintain that homosexuality is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread - then you're automatically a bigoted homophobe whose voice should not be heard and who should be censored for hate speech. They are trying to get tolerance for their lifestyles to the extent that they're willing to trifle free speech in order to do so.
In my country, the LGBT has actively lobbied for broadening hate speech laws. Right now it is illegal to incite hatred and violent acts against groups of people in public. The LGBT, however, is trying to broaden the hate speech sections to mean that pretty much any statement that people find insulting should be legally punished. The problem is that already not supporting them is something they find offensive. They're literally worse than feminists here. They've assumed a very fundamental position - that their world view is correct by default, that they should be immune to criticism and anyone who dares say anything against them should be legally punished. This is evident by their position that merely saying ''I don't support gay marriage'' is in their eyes hateful, intolerant and insulting.
They have no public support here, so they've rebranded their efforts as a human rights issue. They know that they will never achieve their goals by fair, democratic processes. The only way they'll ever get their wants here, is if they appeal to human rights - that their right to marry is a human right and that the majority opinion does not dictate human rights. Because they have very little support here, they literally have no local funding and most of their money comes from international LGBT groups and the European Union.
Ultimately, in the context of my country, there does indeed exist a gay agenda. Gay marriage isn't something that will happen any time soon in our country - so this constant propagation of it is artificial. It isn't emerging naturally from the evolution of our own culture and society - right now it is something that is being subtlely imposed on us externally.
No, most atheists are not smart at all. Sturgeons law also applies to people, meaning that 90% of atheists are every bit as stupid as 90% of theists. Theists are stupid in one way (namely using bad science, ignorant of sophisticated philosophical defenses of theism, lack of self-criticism, self-righteousness etc), and atheists are stupid, for the most part, in the same way.
After watching and reading hundreds of atheist/theists exchanges on the internet - it has become clear that the average atheist's points consists entirely of condescension, lofty moralizing, over-generalization and ''clever'' quips about their opponents intelligence - in other words atheists think that poorly assembled sarcasm and ad hominem attacks amount to a valid argument. Not to mention they think that googling bible contradictions will make them an instant biblical scholar.
When some ignorant, judgemental theist converts to atheism - nothing has really happened to him. The only difference is that instead of being an ignorant, judgemental theist, the person is now an ignorant, judgemental atheist.
I do feel that many atheists have a superiority complex - they think that being an atheist will automatically make them smarter than a theist in every facet of intelligence. They have completely deluded themselves into thinking that they are some intellectual authorities - and that is what makes them come off as jerkish. They think they are the enlightened and any sheep of a theist is pretty much beneath them.
That's not to say that theists are any way smarter - most theists too have based their entire view on unjustified premises and flawed argumentation.
So you don't know that you shouldn't steal from people? You don't know you shouldn't kill people? Even if you say yes, that's you. The majority of people know these things are classified as bad.
If there is no objective standard for morality, then telling me that killing is wrong is about as arbitrary as telling me that wearing shoes inside the house is wrong. Without objective morals we are left with subjective morals - and subjective morals are nothing more than personal preferences - opinions essentially.
In such a world everyone makes their own morals, their own rights and wrongs. So if Ted Bundy decided that he enjoyed killing and raping women - at best you can say that killing and raping is something you do not prefer. You cannot tell Bundy that what he did is somehow wrong in the same way you can't tell a kid that his taste for chocolate ice cream is somehow wrong. A subjective preference can't ever be wrong nor can it be right.
The majority is just a sum of individuals - a sum of subjective preferences that are in no way objective.
So yeah, in such a world I can't say that the above mentioned things (stealing, killing) are wrong.
That's why laws are based on the majority.
It seems to me that you use moral and immoral synonymously with legal and illegal. Is this correct?
Yes. In fact, when slavery was legal, and good, it was that way because most people agreed on it being that way. Sticking to the point of this debate, God even said it was good, now that it's not, that means God was wrong. The perfect being was wrong about something, how absurd right?
Since you've bitten the bullet, would you maintain that what the Nazi's did to the jews was also moral then? After all, in Germany the majority decided that it was moral.
As for God -My conception of God is purely philosophical and is not based on any religious deity or religious scriptures.
Homosexuality is not wrong because most people agree that equality is good. Equality is a basic principle of good, that's why this one doesn't hold up as logical.
That is very confusing because most people would agree that freedom and liberty are good - the romans certainly thought so and also did white americans - yet you maintained in your rebuttal that slavery can be good as long as the majority dictates it. Meaning that it can be good regardless if the majority treasured the principles of freedom and liberty.
In terms of homosexuality you are being completely inconsistent. Why is it that in this special case the majority is wrong? How is this possible if it's the majority that decides what is right and what is wrong? - by such a definition the majority can't ever be incorrect in its judgement.
So what if they believe in equality? They believed in freedom and liberty as well, but that didn't stop you from conceeding that slavery can be moral as long as the majority wills it.
Sure we can talk about equality, freedom, right to life etc etc - but when you ask what these principles actually mean, you would get radically different answers.
Yet I have this as a question, where was God in all of these times? Since you're defending his need.
Dunno. I don't think of god as some bearded guy who floats around, zaps bad guys and saves kittens from a tree. I've never maintained anything of the sort.
All I said was that without God it's practically impossible to have an objective foundation for morality without it being arbitrary.
No, it isn't known. Good is not something that is self evident at all - if it truly were, then moral philosophy would have no reason to exist. There is no singular consensus and there is much disagreement. You would just have to look at society to see it.
To say that what is good is what is generally accepted by most people i.e the majority - well, does that mean that slavery is good as long as the majority says it's good? Does that mean that homosexuality is bad because most people say so? Does that mean that Martin Luther King was immoral in his time because he went against the majority's idea of what is moral and good?
I think the US declaration of independence says it even more eloquently - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The whole idea here is again, a deontological one - that human beings have certain unalienable rights that come from a higher power, a divine source even. Since such rights come from a higher source, the government cannot ever legislate them away and when the government attempts to do so - it violates the natural law and as such becomes illegitimate.
The right to life cannot be taken away, it cannot be given - every human being has it by the sheer virtue of their existence. The right to life can only be violated.
This idea that human beings have intrinsic value is, in my opinion, the greatest philosophical and moral triumph of the human race. This idea is something that is not self-evident at all if you look at history and it saddens me that such a principle is once again chipped away when it took such great effort and time to construct it.
This is going to be long because I find your post to be one of the more balanced and sensible ones.
I agree that there is a tendency towards deontology. I myself maintain that consequences have no moral dimension, only the action has moral relevance. Still, however it seems to me that the pro-choice are are equally stubborn with their utilitarian approach.
Pro-lifers generally see intrinsic value in human life and that human beings can never be used as means, but ends in themselves. The right to life is something so sacred that no socio-economic motive can justify violating it. The principle is that it is always wrong to kill innocent human beings, it is always wrong even if it brings about a greater increase in happiness, wealth, stability etc.
Even if the baby is unwanted or if he/she's gonna have a bad childhood - it doesn't matter to a pro-lifer because people do not get their value from other people - we don't measure a persons value just by how much people like them or enjoy their presence. If you have some loner who has no friends or family - is his life no longer valuable simply because nobody wants or desires his presence?
Likewise, we do not measure a persons right to life by his/her socio-economic conditions - we can't just start killing vagrants because we simply decided that their living conditions and life-style can't possibly be fulfilling, so we're doing them a favor by killing them.
When it comes to overpopulation - yes it is a problem and I agree that some solutions need to be found. However, that solution needs to be compatible with the principle of the right to life.
First of all, we need to understand that overpopulation isn't a problem because people have more children - it's a problem because human beings simply live far longer than they used to. This has led to very severe sociological problems, especially in Europe where the number of elderly people is very high and the number of young people keeps dwindling - not only because of emigration, but because there is a huge number of pregnancies being terminated and there just isn't a large influx of youth into the population.
A very interesting solution to overpopulation would simply be to stop funding the sort of medical research that has the purpose of extending our lives. That way we'll make sure that there is a steady influx of youth while not killing anyone.
No, I don't consider it to be moral. It inherently devalues human life, it purports that some human beings are less valuable than others and as such not worthy of protection etc.
The last 100 years of history has shown, how dangerous such ideas and philosophies can be.
With the Gosnell horrors and more abortion clinic meat factories being exposed, people are finally waking up and seeing that something has gone terribly wrong.
Because people speak the same language, we communicate and we have the ability to love, which many other species don't.
You've completely missed the point here. A zoophile would reject the necessity of having two people just the same as you reject the necessity of having an opposite sex couple.
Who are you to say that his definition is wrong and yours is right? How is that any different from a conservative telling that your definition of marriage is wrong.
But my point is homosexuality and heterosexuality is the same - you like people who are not in your family, they are not animals nor are they related.
So basically your argument about love amounts to - People that fall in love with each other should have the right to marry... except incest couples.
Seems like a pretty arbitrary exclusion. Incestuous couples completely fit under your argument. A mother and a son can be a couple that love each other, therefore they should be allowed to marry. You just arbitrarily cut them out because you don't like that conclusion.
How is that any different from a conservative cutting out gays from marriage because they don't like that conclusion?
There is nothing gross about it.. they are people who love each other, and their genitals shouldn't prevent them from doing that.
This is just your opinion. Someone who engages in incest would tell me that there is nothing gross about expressing his love to his sister for example. A zoophile would say there is nothing gross about having a loving relationship with an animal.
What gives you the credentials to decide what is gross and what isn't?
What is wrong with necrophilia? Well, the person is dead for God's sakes
If a guy fucked a corpse in his own private home, which he got legally - how is he hurting anyone? Live and let live. Lets be a bit more open minded and tolerant here.
What is wrong with bestiality? One of them is an animal
So? These are just pathetic blanket answers that explain nothing.
You might as well ask me What's wrong with homosexuality - to which I would reply that it's between same sex people. I doubt such an answer would satisfy you.
What is wrong with incest? They're related.
So?
What's wrong with homosexuality? .. really??? I can't find anything.
Let me give you a shoutoutloud style answer to that question. It's because they're same sex couples. lol.
you should let related people marry because you fall in love with the person, not his or hers genitals.
I don't know about you .. but that doesn't make sense to me. How is that an argument supporting incest?
It seems that you are incapable of seeing that related people are, in fact, people too and love between related people happens.
If a brother falls in love with his sister and vice versa, should they be able to marry? I'm sorry, but if you deny them marriage, your ''love'' argument falls apart because apparently love is not the deciding factor at all.
Again, how is that an argument supporting polygamy? If it is, then it is indeed a bad one, because it doesn't make sense.
Because people may fall in love with several people at once. If they are willing that have a polygamous relationship, why shouldn't they be able to marry? It's love, are you going to come between love?
I can't see how my argument can fit under all the things you listed. It doesn't make sense for any of them.
Are family members people? Yes.
Can they fall in love with each other? Yes.
Therefore, they should be able to marry because otherwise you would violate your people fall in love with people, not genitals.
To be honest, it's not even an argument, it's an assertion.
But zoophiles shouldn't because it takes at least two people to say ''I do'' - find an animal that can do that. Of course you could train a parrot to say that, but I think you know what I mean. An animal is not capable of loving a person in a sexually/emotional way.
Why should marriage be between only two people? Why can't it be between animals? A zoophile would reject your ''two people/i do'' marriage alltogether as inherently discriminatory as his right to ''love'' is excluded by that definition.
Once again, and you didn't answer this question - that if gays can redefine what marriage means and what marriage requires - why can't zoophiles do the same?
My definition of marriage is when you love someone emotionally and sexually.
That's fine and dandy. And a brother and a sister can love each other both emotionally and sexually too. I guess they should be able to marry now.
But apparently you define a marriage as a union between two people with the possibility of production of children - how romantic.
Who says marriage needs to be about romance? You?
Do you consider teddy-bears people?
Why do you think it needs to be between exclusively people?
That is true - but you can't deny homosexuals to marry just to prevent bestiality, necrophilia, incest or polygamy.
Why not? That's the only consistent solution. The other is to take the argument to its logical conclusion and allow all of the other deviants their fair share as well.
Drawing a line in the middle is arbitrary and discriminatory to boot. Why is it okay to pick and choose your favorite sexual minorities? Why is one minority seen as more valuable or more ''equal'' as the other. It's very paradoxical, especially if you use slogans that purport equality and zero discrimination.
If the pro gay marriage arguments are valid and they can be carried over to other deviancies, then clearly our moral intuitions about deviancies such as incest and the like are wrong.
What you are saying is, that if we allow homosexuals to marry, we must also allow bestiality - right? Because it fits under the same argument.
I have not said it, what I said was that an argument needs to be applied evenly and without discrimination.
Whether a pro-gay argument can be carried over to bestiality depends on the formulation of the argument.
That's the same as saying if we give black people civil rights, we must also give animals the right to vote. Because it fits under the same argument.
No, not really. Whether that extends to animals is dependent on the argument.
Your argument about love between people and not genitals - that argument does extend to incestous couples, polygamy and polyandry. This is the sad implication of your argument. You now have two options
- You either bite the bullet and support these other deviants.
- Or you withdraw your argument, re-evaluate it and try to fix its deficiencies.
By the way - bestiality and necrophilia does not fit under my argument ''People fall in love with people, not genitals'' - because I don't consider dead bodies or animals people.
So what? Some people think love doesn't even require two people. Conservatives don't consider a union between same sex people marriage, but I hardly doubt you care much about what they think on the issue.
It would be naive to suggest that gays will be the last people to challenge the status quo regarding sexual ethics and the definition of marriage. If gays get to redefine what marriage means to facilitate their behavior and preferences, why shouldn't zoophiles, polygamists etc be able to do the same?
Fine, I will concede that the reproduction argument is flawed and I will reformulate it in a better way when I have the time, however:
That's so typical for people arguing against homosexual marriages - going into another subject.
Homosexuality and bestiality are not the same things.
Homosexuality and necrophilia are not the same things.
Homosexuality and incest are not the same things.
And homosexuality and polygamy are not the same things.
Please stay on the subject.
The problem is that I am staying on the subject as these things are directly implicated by pro-gay marriage arguments. If a single argument can be used to defend X and Y, it is discriminatory to apply it only to X and not to Y.
With that said - People fall in love with people, not genitals.
Love can be used to justify anything. Maybe I love my teddy-bear, should I now be allowed to marry it.
This argument can also be used to defend incest, as a mother/son or a father/daughter or just siblings are people and love between them happens. And when it does, it should therefore be allowed. After all, they are people and they fall in love with people.. not genitals.
People also fall in love with animals (zoophiles), should bestial relationships be legal and should society facilitate their sexual desires into our definition of marriage for the sake of equality?
These issues are not separate at all if they all fit under the same argument. If you are intellectually honest and logically consistent with your argument, then you should follow your argument to its conclusion and not draw an arbitrary line.
How am I forcing my beliefs? For a democracy to work, people need to be able to voice their concerns and opinions about societal subjects. This is my opinion and I voiced it.
I haven't shoved it down anyone's throat - I haven't said that everyone needs to agree with me.
A same sex couple can adopt, and a lesbian couple can get artificial insemination.
Adoption, however, does not create new citizens. When giving a child up for adoption, there needs to be that certainty that the childs new home is better than his life in the orphanage. That's why not everyone gets to adopt.
People who are eligible for adoption generally need to have a stable marriage, family life etc. Given that homosexual couples (and this strive for homosexual marriage) is such a fresh phenomena, there really is no way to determine how an impressionable child will respond to this completely new unit. I think it's unethical to expose children to such conditions for the sake of some social experiment.
What about the infertile men and women out there? The number of men with low quality semen is rising, many men are completely unable to father children and there are numerous of diseases, disabilities and disorders women can get, that can make them unable to carry children. And let's not forget the women who've entered menopause - should you deny them their right to marry too?
Equating infertility with homosexual unions seems naive to me.
An infertile couple is a union that cannot have children conditionally - it means that it's still a procreative union, just a broken one. To be a procreative union, it must in essence, be a heterosexual couple. A homosexual union, however, is by it's very nature not a procreative union. A homosexual union will never produce offspring as there is no potential for it. A heterosexual union does have that potential by the very nature of the union.
Therefore, I don't see a problem with infertile couples getting married.
And then there are those who just simply don't want kids.. there are people who publicly announce that they do not want children - should you deny them the right to marry too?
No, I won't deny them. Because once again, it doesn't really matter whether they factually have children. What matters is whether it's a procreative union.
I think your argumentation seems, sorry for my language, stupid. You don't sign a contract promising you will produce children in your marriage.
Did I ever say that? I said that there is very good potential that children will come from a married couple. Practice has shown that people who get married will generally also create a family and rear children.
As such, the government encourages couples to get married by many benefits, mostly tax deductions, increased pensions etc.
And you say it's nothing more than governmental charity - then why not allow it?
Because we generally don't give out laws and monetary benefits simply to make people happy. There needs to be some kind of a payoff.
If to people want it, then seriously why not let them? You aren't making things more difficult for society or citizens by allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Maybe we should legalize bestiality, necrophilia, incest and polygamy/polyandry while we're at it too. After all, there are people that engage in such acts and would it bother you if your neigbours across the street had, for example, incestuous relationships?
AS long as it's between consenting people and it doesn't harm third parties - where's the harm, huh?
Can you actually give me a positive case for gay marriage - as in an argument for it? Even if you debunk my argument, that doesn't mean that gay marriage is good by default. As long as you don't give a positive argument yourself, gay marriage remains neutral.
Not a christian, but also don't support same sex marriage.
I think that people aren't asking the right questions when regarding marriage - specifically why the state bothers to regulate it in the first place. The state doesn't regulate similar unions, such as friendships, casual relationships etc, so it seems to me that there most be a legitimate interest for the state to regulate marriage, offer benefits for married couples etc. The question is what that interest is?
And I see that interest as procreation - the production of new human beings, new citizens. The state has a legitimate interest in its own perpetuation and maintenance via the production of children, their socializing, their protection, and their transformation into productive citizens who will contribute to the common good. The family unit is a very effective and also a very cheap way to achieving these ends.
It makes sense for the state to give a privileged status to a union between a man and a woman, because there is a good potential that the relationships will produce new citizens who will form family units of their own. A marriage entails a long-term relationship that will grow, educate and socialize children into productive citizens. I think this is why marriage has always been seen as a public good, why it has always been hailed as a pillar of society. Heck, even in Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was heavily spread in the aristocracy - the greeks still saw marriage as something separate with public value.
As homosexual unions are inherently incapable of producing children, it makes no sense for the state to support such unions. There is no societal payoff and recognizing gay marriage as ''marriage'' would be nothing more that governmental charity.
That's not an exact case. - It seems to me that your answer to my question is exactly an example of such a case. The government has control over me in the sense that they tell me I can't kill people and I must follow.
The woman is not tied down, not in prison or in any way immobilized. Pregnancy is not some kind of hardcore debilitating disease - many women continue working and living their normal lives up to their last months of pregnancy. The only limits to her freedom are not to drink alchohol or ingest any sort of poison that would harm the child, do pushups or wear tight pants etc etc. The limitations are superficial at best.
There are also more implications with your ''control'' argument? Are parents under the control of the government when they are forced to care for their children? Or are they under the control of the childern? Who controls who in this situation?
A parent may want to be free to fulfill his career ambitions, travel around the world, enjoy life to the fullest etc - I can't do that if I'm forced to care for my children according to the law. Should parents then have the right to dump their children on the side walk? Should that parent have a legal right to demand infanticide? After all, it's one person's freedom vs another persons life, just as it is with abortion.
How does he have control over her body?
Does the government have control over my body when they tell me not to kill innocent people via laws? If the answer is no, then you have your answer to your question. If the answer is yes, then the government already controls our bodies and forbidding the mother from killing the fetus is just another pebble in a pile. Who cares.
I agree. The fundamental question is whether the fetus is a human being or not. The thing is that embryology has given us a very clear answer - that every human being begins their life as a fertilized egg.
Conception creates an organism, that will inevitably grow into an adult human being. That organism already has his/her gender, eye color, length, susceptibility to diseases etc already coded into his/her genetic program. Everything is already there.
The mechanics between a zygote developing into a fetus and a fetus developing into a toddler are exactly the same. Any sort of cut-off point in the middle is arbitrary and exclusive.
None of the most prestigious pro-choice advocates (Sanger, Tooley, Singer, Minerva, Giublini, Thomson) actually deny that the unborn entity is a human being. To do so would be foolish and unscientific. Instead they argue that abortion is permissible anyway and that being a human being doesn't automatically give you rights. You need more i.e personhood, consciousness, brain activity etc. What's funny is that Singer, for example, has made a very good and logically valid case for abortion. The problem is that Singer's version is so morally repugnant and disgusting to many people that they just ignore him (Singer supports infanticide for example with pro choice arguments).
So ultimately, while the question may be about the status of the fetus (human or not), the debate has become more about woman's autonomy rights and creating additional criteria to determine, who are human beings and who aren't.
Abortions simply does not conform to my vision of what a healthy, first world civilization should be like. It's hypocritical for any society that purports human life to be objectively, intrinsically valuable to support abortion.
I see only two options in the case of rights. Human beings either have an intrinsic right to life by the sheer virtue of being human beings... or they have the right to life conditionally - meaning that get the right to life only if they meet certain conditions. If we opt for the first option, then the answer is clear - Abortion is wrong. If we opt for the second option, the question only becomes clear once we decide what those conditions are. Basically we will start to bargain, argue and barter about who gets what rights, when do they get them and in what range. Problem is that such a method has had a very bad track record in history, as these ''conditions'' have varied from gender to skin color, from religious affiliation to nationality up to the level of development in modern day contexts.
The thing with Dawkins is that as long as he sticks to his field (evolutionary biology), he's pure gold. I very much enjoy reading his books on the topic of evolution.
However, when it comes to reading his religion-bashing books, it's quite clear that he has an incredibly biased and simplistic view of religion, his approach to the more philosophical issues is sophmoric and superficial and it's obvious that he has an ideological axe to grind on the very topic of religion.
Playstation was better.
It popularized the CD rom which enabled developers to create longer and more complex games. The N64 was actually criticized for keeping the cartridge system that had limited capacity. Developing for the cartridge took more time, money and effort while developing for the CD system the PS used was cheaper, quicker, easier and required far less optimization.
Also keep in mind that because of this, the PS enjoyed a huge amount of high quality games such as the FF series, Metal Gear Solid, Chrono Cross and Chrono Trigger as well, the Resident Evil Trilogy, Medievil, Crash Bandicoot, Legacy of Kain etc. The PS is the true console that perfected the 3D jump, the N64 was merely the pioneer.
The N64 had very few high quality and memorable games, most of them came from Nintendo themselves, such as Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time - though none of them have aged well at all, if you ask me.
Whether or not it is a new being is not the argument. Regardless, the originality of it's genetic composite does not affect the argument you're making.
I agree that originality doesn't matter, however the completeness of the genetic information does. As long as the information is incomplete (in the case of the sperm, half the composite is missing) it doesn't have the capability to develop into an adult human being.
For it to gain the capability, the sperm needs to fuse with the unfertilized egg or in the case of cloning, you need to fuse the nucleus of the person with an egg that has no nucleus. Keep in mind, cloning changes nothing about how we perceive the beginning of an individual's life - it just shows that there is more than one way to get there, as in there is more than one way to create a zygote.
Once the genetic information is complete, then the being will develop into an adult human. The mechanics behind the zygote developing into an infant and the said infant into an adult are completely the same. The only thing that separates them is the amount of time it takes. Any cut-off point in the middle of that development is arbitrary and casually selected.
Unsupported opinion based on the assumption that a fetus is entitled and bestowed rights, when it is in no way sovereign, or able to act on the responsibilities that said rights bear.
If the fetus is a human being, then clearly it is a subject of human rights. I don't know how you define human rights, but the general theory behind it is that you don't have to do anything to have human rights. You have them by virtue of simply being human, you have them by simply existing. Nobody can give these rights to you and nobody can take them from you. These rights can only be violated.
The fact that it isn't sovereign or the ability to act on the responsibilites doesn't have any bearing on the status of the being nor the ability to bear those rights. Children, babies especially also aren't sovereign and they have no concept of rights whatsoever. Yet still, we consider them human and we still consider them to have a right to life.
If the quality of being sovereign/the ability to act on the responsibilities that rights bear is the criteria to determine, whether the subject has rights - then you now have a lot of people that have no rights and can simply be killed off. From children, to the demented/insane to the comatose etc.
Because when brain activity ceases 'pulling the plug' is an option, it's about the only option if you don't want them to live in the coma for the rest of their life, or if you don't have the money to support them.
I don't see how this is a legitimate analogy. Is it reasonable to pull the plug on a patient who will most certainly come back to consciousness after 9 months? The reason pulling the plug on the comatose is an option is because there is a very good chance that they'll never come back out of it. In terms on the unborn, they will generally always reach consciousness.
Secondly, this is a socially constructed criteria and has absolutely no bearing on the status of the fetus itself.
It's not my decision it's the ruling of the government. They chose brain activity because it's the only one that allows something the ability to function and feel emotion. It's the same reason (I think) that vegetarians made their choice.
So, basically the government gets to decide who is a human being and who isn't? I guess that sort of makes sense, given that governments have a centuries long tradition of coming up with arbitrary criteria to de-value certains members of the human race.
Barely a century ago the, the government decided that skin color was the quality that determined your worth as a human being. That quality also used to be and in some cases still is - gender, nationality, religion etc. If government gets to decide, then I guess if the government decided to re-institute slavery, you'd be cool with it? After all, the government decides and the government can't ever be wrong.
Because they don't have recordable brain activity.
They also don't have a circulatory system.
That's the same with a fetus that has no emotion, no consciousness.
Why care about emotion and consciousness? Because the government said so?
Brain activity. Seme are able to respond to their environment to a degree, yet we don't consider them alive, why? because they do not yet have brain activity.
Brain activity? Why brain activity? Why not a circulatory system? The seme don't have that either. What is the criteria by which you decide what quality is necessary and what quality isn't?
Semen are very much considered alive, they just aren't considered separate human life. Why? Because semen will never develop into an adult human being due to the fact that 50% of the genetic makeup is missing. The sperm only has 23 chromosomes, shares the DNA of its host etc. Killing a semen therefore doesn't kill any human because no human has yet come into existence.
No, it doesn't matter. Homosexual desires are certainly not chosen, however acting upon those desires is certainly a matter of choice.
Merely having a desire/preference for something shouldn't mean that one should automatically be entitled to it.
Human personhood is just an arbitrary criteria. Why consciousness? Where does science say that consciousness is what defines a human being?
Consciousness is a contingent property dependent on what kind of a being I am - for me to ever gain that trait, I must first be a being that can possess such a trait - whether I have consciousness or not has absolutely no bearing on what species I belong to. That species is Homo Sapiens - one of many animals that has the inherent characteristic of consciousness. The species is essentially a prerequisite.
Biologists define life as a continous process - the key is to determine, when that process begins and when it ends. When it comes to humans and mammalian life in general, that process begins at conception. This is standard empirical data that has been known in the field of biology and embryology for decades. There is no debate.
No, it shouldn't be considered discrimination. Condemnation is simply me not liking the practice of homosexuality - that doesn't mean that I discriminate against homosexuals in my everyday life. I don't treat homosexuals as inferiors etc, I just don't agree and don't like what they do. I don't have to like it and I don't have to condone it.
If mere condemnation is considered discrimination, then I can't really condemn any practice with out discriminating someone. When I condemn smoking, do I discriminate against smokers? When I condemn bestiality and necrophilia, do I discriminate beasties and necros?
No, I don't see why society needs to pander to sexual minorities. What's next, brothers marrying their sisters? Why is sibling based romantic love marginalized and of lesser worth than any other kind of love? Polygamy then? How about necrophilia?
Why should we prefer one sexual minority over the other, especially when those minorities are ultimately harmless, hurt nobody and conduct their affairs in private? If we're gonna go with homosexuality, might as well legalize everything else too out of sheer intellectual consistency.
Natural miscarriages are very common and I do not dispute this. However, natural miscarriages are outside of human control and therefore are not subject to personal decisions. The pro-life view is not only that abortion kills innocent human beings - it's also that people should not be given the ability to make the moral decision to kill other innocent human beings.
The primary question is whether the fetus is a human being. If the fetus isn't a human being, then there is nothing wrong with abortion. If the fetus is a human being, then they are entitled equal treatment before the law - otherwise we would be devaluing certain people (the unborn) for having accidental properties (not sufficiently developed), which is no difference from other accidental properties such as skin color or gender. Viability, as in level of development, is an accidental property and devaluing the fetus is essentially discrimination based on characteristics that are completely outside of the control of the unborn just like my skincolor is outside of my control.
However, this depends on how we define human beings. I define them merely as living individual members of the species Homo Sapien. This definition has a very clear cut empirical answer and is not dependent on socially construed/philosophical views. It is obvious that your definition is different as it entails not only self-sustenance, but also other properties such as cognition, conscious self etc. Since the fetus lacks such properties, you question whether the fetus is, then, a human.
Yes, by these criteria abortion is justified. However, your criterions come with baggage. I can merely ask that since cognition and sentience comes in degrees, why shouldn't we then distribute rights by degree. Those that are of higher sentience and of higher cognition - they take precedence over those that are of lower sentience and cognition - for example, my rights and interests come before babies and infants for I am more developed and sentient, just like my rights come before the fetus, who is less developed and sentient. If I feel that my 2 year old child is getting in the way of my career ambitions and it is impossible to give the child away in a reasonable amount of time to someone else, why shouldn't I be able to kill it?
It also begs the question why we should value babies more than certain animals, such as adult pigs, adult dolphins, adult apes, adult elephants etc, who have a far higher capacity for consciousness, problem-solving and cognition. If we take mental capacity to be the criteria, then killing babies should be as less problematic than killing adult pigs.
And history isn't a good place to look either. Historically, gender inequality has been a standard - does this mean that we shouldn't strive to lessen it? That abortion happens has no bearing on whether abortion itself is moral or not.
Because non self-sustaining life clearly isn't life, right? Viability has nothing to do with the beginning of human life itself, all it determines is when that human life can continue outside the mother's womb. To even suggest that viability is the beginning of human life is utterly absurd and completely out of touch with reality.
But I'll give you the benefit of doubt. If you can find me at least 3 academic, peer-reviewed sources, that clearly posit viability as the beginning of human life, I will become pro-choice.
Meanwhile, I will posit my own sources for the conception as the beginning of human life:
''All organisms, however large and complex they may be when fullgrown, begin life as but a single cell. This is true of the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.'' - Dr. M. Krieger, The Human Reproductive System, 88 (1969).
''The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.'' - Dr. B. Patten, Human Embryology, 43 (3rd edition, 1968).
Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, a principal research associate in the department of medicine in Harvard Medical school has said and I quote:
''So, therefore, it is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life.''
Dr. Ronan O' Rahilly and Dr. Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (1996) - It needs to be emphasized that life is a continuous, as is also human life, so that the question When does (human) life begin? is a meaningless question in terms of ontogeny. Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.
------
And I've got plenty more. I feel like I'm arguing with a creationist that denies evolution.
The problem with viability really is that it's an arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with empirical science and experimentation - viability is pretty much only about where the mother is situated and that's it.
Parallelly, conception is the hallmark event, when a truly unique human organism with a distinct genetic code (DNA) has come into existence. That single cell will develop into an embryo, which will develop into a fetus, which will develop into a baby, which will develop into an infant, which will develop into an adult - and that process finally ends with death.
The viability level is essentially a legal ruling and nothing else. Viability has nothing to do with whether the fetus is a human or not - viability is simply the moment when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the woman's body.
Justice Blackmun essentially defended the viability argument by stating that in the third trimester, the ''state's interest in pre-natal life becomes compelling.'' Since the fetus is now able to survive, abortion can therefore be restricted.
The viability criteria has been pretty much debunked as it's completely dependent on the level of available medical technology. In the west, the fetus can already survive at 6 months. In africa, that same fetus would die a certain death. If viability determines the beginning of human life, then we must conclude that the fetus has different points of beginning depending where that fetus is geographically located.
No, they shouldn't. If the unborn are human beings, then we are essentially conducting genocide on an yearly basis. Given that there is a clear scientific consensus on the beginning of the life of each individual human being (conception), there is very good grounds to push the anti-abortion campaign.
Most, if not all, of the well known and strongest defenders of abortion freely admit this scientific fact. They, however, maintain that being a human being is not enough for moral consideration - you must also be a person. However, since every one who evokes the personhood argument' has their own brand of personhood criterias (some say the ability to reason and think, some emphasise brain waves, some argue that that fetus needs to be able to survive outside the womb etc) - this has become dubious and convoluted. Personally I don't find it to be convincing, but clearly others do.
In any case, there is no significant reason to give up.
