Beware, liberals are about to frame Christians!

[Ladewig]

I am asking it because you stated the doctrine, and I said, that is what the RCC proclaims. I then introduced what seems to me to be a philosophical problem in it, which I have never seen convincingly resolved.

I addressed you because it was you who presented the detail of the belief, whether you share it or not. If you don't, then I'm in entire agreement with you.

OK.
I'm cool with that.

 

[Ziggurat]

No I would not accept it. Why should I?

You shouldn't.

And yet, your own argument was based on exactly the same logic. So why should anyone else accept your argument? Again, the answer is that they shouldn't.

 

[Craig B]

You shouldn't.

And yet, your own argument was based on exactly the same logic. So why should anyone else accept your argument? Again, the answer is that they shouldn't.

My own argument is based on what same logic? Which argument and what logic? I don't yet know even what suppositions you are making about the logic underlying my argument. I've given you none, for you have as yet asked for none, and you have chosen to take things step by step. I have simply said that infanticide is deplorable. How is that "logic"?

I have not yet been asked what my argument is; merely what my attitude is.

 

[Ziggurat]

My own argument is based on what same logic? Which argument and what logic?

I suppose it wasn't really yours, it was Manopolus's, but you jumped in to defend it, and couldn't understand my response to him.

 

[Craig B]

I suppose it wasn't really yours, it was Manopolus's, but you jumped in to defend it, and couldn't understand my response to him.

In what way is Manoplus' attitude to abortion like my or other people's attitude to infanticide? You I think it was, who stated that nobody believes that a child is the same thing as a foetus.

Personally I think that there are people who really do believe that they are the same; but if it is not true that they are the same thing, what is the relevance of M's attitude to one situation, to my attitude to something different?

 

[Ziggurat]

In what way is Manoplus' attitude to abortion like my or other people's attitude to infanticide?

Wow. You really, really don't get it.

His attitude towards abortion isn't like your attitude towards infanticide. His attitude towards abortion is like my hypothetical pro-infanticide advocate's attitude towards infanticide. And his justification for abortion is the same as the justification I gave for infanticide.

You I think it was, who stated that nobody believes that a child is the same thing as a foetus.

You clearly have no idea what this conversation is even about, do you?

Personally I think that there are people who really do believe that they are the same; but if it is not true that they are the same thing, what is the relevance of M's attitude to one situation, to my attitude to something different?

Is a Spaniard the same as an Italian?

No.

Does the difference matter in terms of the morality or legality of killing either one?

 

[Toke]

You really don't get ziggy's aversion to shady argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

You really don't get ziggy's aversion to shady argument.

It's a bit of a character flaw, really, but I've come to terms with it.

 

[Craig B]

Wow. You really, really don't get it.

His attitude towards abortion isn't like your attitude towards infanticide. His attitude towards abortion is like my hypothetical pro-infanticide advocate's attitude towards infanticide. And his justification for abortion is the same as the justification I gave for infanticide.



You clearly have no idea what this conversation is even about, do you?



Is a Spaniard the same as an Italian?

No.

Does the difference matter in terms of the morality or legality of killing either one?

By a definition irrelevant to this argument, no to the first, and no to the second. But the difference between a foetus and an infant is of a different order. I have raised the issue of contraceptive devices that work by inhibiting the future development of a fertilised cell. Others are barrier devices that prevent conception before it happens.

Now tell me if use of the first type is equivalent to killing a child, and use of the second is not.

If you respond No to the first of these, why?

 

[dudalb]

The OP Ignores the fact that many Liberals are Christians...though seldom of the fundemtalist variety.

 

[Ziggurat]

But the difference between a foetus and an infant is of a different order.

Passing through the vaginal orifice creates a fundamental transformation?

Perhaps you think it does. But I hope you can at least conceive of why someone else mightd not.

I have raised the issue of contraceptive devices that work by inhibiting the future development of a fertilised cell. Others are barrier devices that prevent conception before it happens.

Now tell me if use of the first type is equivalent to killing a child, and use of the second is not.

If you respond No to the first of these, why?

Here's the part that's probably going to confuse you. I haven't stated my personal opinion on abortion, or on birth control. Do you know why I haven't done so? Because my personal opinion is irrelevant to the argument I was making. A lot of people get confused by this, but you can dismantle bad arguments regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion.

I don't really begrudge anyone differing opinions about abortion or birth control. It's a difficult topic, with some hard moral choices. But what I do begrudge people is a casual dismissal of differing opinions, an inability to credit an opponent's position with any merit or even good faith. And that's exactly what happened with Manoplus's post. It was a very bad argument. And I pointed out its flaws.

You couldn't understand those flaws, and I'm still not sure you do. Because if you really understood them, then you would know that your questions are pointless. My answers don't matter here, because I'm not trying to make the kind of argument in favor of my answer that Manoplus was making in favor of his.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The OP Ignores the fact that many Liberals are Christians...though seldom of the fundemtalist variety.

And thus outside the lunatic fringe. Happy is the person who has no crazy fundies in their family.

 

[a_unique_person]

Then you haven't been paying attention. For example, this professor wants to criminally prosecute people for not believing in climate change.

no, he does not.

 

[sylvan8798]

And thus outside the lunatic fringe. Happy is the person who has no crazy fundies in their family.

Had Thanksgiving dinner with our family's crazy fundie. Learned she is still trying to pray away my son's gay. (Son was elsewhere this year due to work.) Prayer ineffectual thus far.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Had Thanksgiving dinner with our family's crazy fundie. Learned she is still trying to pray away my son's gay. (Son was elsewhere this year due to work.) Prayer ineffectual thus far.

My relatives have stopped suggesting I should die real quick so I can find out for myself that I'm wrong about Heaven and Hell. I guess their hospital bills got too high.

 

[Trebuchet]

The OP Ignores the fact that many Liberals are Christians...though seldom of the fundemtalist variety.

Those are No True Christians. Neither are Catholics, of course.

 

[Craig B]

Passing through the vaginal orifice creates a fundamental transformation?

Perhaps you think it does. But I hope you can at least conceive of why someone else mightd not.

Here's the part that's probably going to confuse you. I haven't stated my personal opinion on abortion, or on birth control. Do you know why I haven't done so? Because my personal opinion is irrelevant to the argument I was making. A lot of people get confused by this, but you can dismantle bad arguments regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion.

I don't really begrudge anyone differing opinions about abortion or birth control. It's a difficult topic, with some hard moral choices. But what I do begrudge people is a casual dismissal of differing opinions, an inability to credit an opponent's position with any merit or even good faith. And that's exactly what happened with Manoplus's post. It was a very bad argument. And I pointed out its flaws.

You couldn't understand those flaws, and I'm still not sure you do. Because if you really understood them, then you would know that your questions are pointless. My answers don't matter here, because I'm not trying to make the kind of argument in favor of my answer that Manoplus was making in favor of his.

This is all quite irrelevant. You have initiated a process of reasoning. That is what we are exploring. In course of that I asked about contraception. You have ignored that, and instead have commenced a discourse about vaginal orifices. Can we clear up the point I raised first?

 

[psionl0]

My relatives have stopped suggesting I should die real quick so I can find out for myself that I'm wrong about Heaven and Hell. I guess their hospital bills got too high.

I would have thought that this was when they would have started suggesting that you die real quick.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is all quite irrelevant. You have initiated a process of reasoning. That is what we are exploring. In course of that I asked about contraception. You have ignored that, and instead have commenced a discourse about vaginal orifices. Can we clear up the point I raised first?

We can do so to the following extent: the reasoning that Manoplus used would not suffice to draw a meaningful distinction between birth control that operates before fertilization and birth control that operates after conception.

Beyond that, your example has no relevance, and even that part should have been obvious by now. If you still don't understand this, then you're hopeless.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Passing through the vaginal orifice creates a fundamental transformation?

Not that I feel the need to get deeply involved in your conversation, but yes. There's a huge amount of gene regulation changes happening at birth, and on a physiological level there's plenty of behaviour that has to kick in right then but not before: breathing, eating, etc. It's the least arbitrary line you could draw, though that hasn't stopped people trying to blur it.