Timothy Murray lost his father earlier this year and had been asking his principal for counseling when she called in the police
Timothy Murray lost his father earlier this year and had been asking his principal for counseling when she called in the police
Nope. You are committing a categorical error.
Human is very well defined biological definition, objects within the human set are classified according to material properties that are empirically observable, you are falsely equating it with the philosophical concept of personhood.
“Change that definition…”
Changing the symbol used to represent an object with the same properties as a fetus, does absolutely nothing to the reasoning. Because we are not reasoning about the symbol represented by the string “human”, we are reasoning about objects with shared properties (well you aren’t, actual philosophers are). Some of those objects have moral value based on these properties, therefore all objects that have these properties also have moral value. What we call it doesn’t matter. It seems so ironic that you whine about wordplay, when you literally confused yourself over it.
My argument is that relying on personhood (which you didn’t you hilariously relied on bodily autonomy), is still insufficient because personhood membership does not account for wrongness of killing. Remember our moral principle of who is allowed to be killed is derived from determining what categories we already fundamentally accept are permissible to kill. This is called analytic descriptivism, and you are trying to use it too, you are just completely incompetent. I did not rigorously prove it to be insufficient, because you never actually made the argument, you simply dropped the bodily autonomy argument like everyone does (unless of course you want to accept the premises, and reasoning and deny the conclusion like your intellectual peers in Bedlam).
“If you weren’t defending that people go to jail”
Arguing that an action is immoral, is not the same as arguing that it must be punished. You need a separate argument that immoral actions should be punished or deterred in someway. This is simply a fabrication on your part. In fact if you are such an intelligent logician, can you tell me what logical error you are making here? (Hint: it starts with “affirming”, to help you find it since you clearly have no idea).
There is a very large body of philosophical work on this subject, everything you have been arguing is pop philosophy that has been rejected as false for decades to even centuries.
If you were even remotely educated on this topic you would realize that you are intellectually equivalent to a flat-earther. There are so many comical errors I can’t address them all.
This discussion however is hilarious to me, next time instead of jerking yourself off over word salad consider that the person you are trying to refute is possibly very knowledgeable on the subject (and possibly has an academic background in it :) ).
I was talking about “A human” not “human” - very different things and the former is definitely not “very well biological definition” (I assume you meant “defined” rather than “definition”).
Did you think the quotes were decorative rather than delimitative?
What follows is then mainly bollocks and projecting your misintepretation of my point as somehow a set of inherent personal flaws of mine, always enternaining but not actually making an argument.
You’ve spent the last several posts saying things like “you do not kill a human” and “it’s the same as an unconscious human and you do not kill an uncoscious human” to justify your case but all of the sudden you’re saying you haven’t relied on the meaning of “a human” which you is inconsistent with the very things you wrote.
Then you delegate the definition of “a human” - aka personhood - to some vague unnamed “philosophers” whilst still failing to provide it and justify it.
Then you restated the same “you don’t kill a human” argument this time around using “the wrongness of killing” unless it’s “in a category we already fundamentally accept are permissible to kill”, whilst still failing to provide a well defined and justified definition for the threshold between “not a human” and “a human” or, in your knew argumentative structure, being a member of a “category we already fundamentally accept are permissible to kill” to not a member. Worse “a category we already fundamentally accept are permissible to kill” is an even more ill defined, vaguer definition that “a human” (starting by who is that “we” that “fundamentally accepts” all those categories and their boundary definitions) - again you’re delegating to unamed individuals rather than providing a definition and you even massivelly expanded size of the problem space.
(On the upside, I suppose bring in the very definition of “alive” into the argument will trully fire up on both sides veritable legions of virologists)
–
HOWEVER:
I do agree that if as you now say, you’re not talking about forcing your moral on others via lawmaking and your take on this is purelly a moral one, then absolutelly whatever ill defined threshold you have in your mind is right for you and absolutellly you’re entitled to try and convince others of that - it is indeed a moral choice to believe that, for example, “a human is formed at the time of conception” and from there derive that, morally, what by that definition is a human developing inside a womb is always entitled to the same protections as a human after having been born.
As long as it’s about one’s moral guidance in one’s personal choices, it’s all valid and boundary conditions need not be well defined or justified because “I’ll know what’s right and what’s wrong when I see it” thresholds are good enough for personal moral.
The thing is, you’ve made your case in a post about legal consequences for somebody from anti-abortion law, hence it is implied that your post is justifying the Law (and if it was not your intention to do so, it would’ve been easy to make that clear) and that’s entirelly different because by that point you’re not making a case for “this is a moral point of view people should have” (and hence you try to reason people into sharing it) but instead it it’s “this is a moral point of view people should behave according to or be harmed if they do not” (quite literally by being deprived of their freedom if they don’t) and that’s were all the need for clearly defined and justified thresholds arises because in forcing pthers to comply you have two entities with two sets of rights - since the pregnant women is a human, with the right to freedom - and from the definition of when does a piece of organic mater becomes a human also arises the point were some of the rights of the pregnant woman will be denied in favour of the other human: for the purpose of limiting the rights of a human - the pregnant woman - an ill defined threshold of the “I’ll know it when I see it” is just an arbitrary threshold to deny that person’s rights.
(From the first comment of yours I replied to, I got the impression you totally missed this: the so-called “pro abortion” posture is not in favour of “poor single women having abortions”, it’s in favour of “poor single women having the choice to have an abortion” - it’s not at all about “people should have abortions”, it’s about people not being forced either way. This is why you often see that position named “pro choice” rather than “pro abortion” - it’s not in favour of abortion, rather it’s against limiting a woman’s choice on that subject.
If indeed there are people out that think “poor single women should have abortions” I’m on the same side as you - I don’t think they should: what I do think is that the option to chose to do so or not should be theirs and they should not be punished either way for their choice)
Personally, if indeed your point is a purelly personal moral one were you do not desire that others are forced to comply with your moral then yeah, it’s absolutelly valid and needs not even have well defined boundaries between acceptable and not acceptable and I see no harm in tryng to convince individuals to share that moral point of view and act accordingly in their own personal choices.