Where?
Bu8t, for argument's sake, lets assume you're right. Will you then agree with me that despite their being an ultimate reality, we still view things the way we want? That is to say, people still have their interpretations even if there was an ultimate truth. And, since none are privvy to anything except their own interpretations, the "reality" of the issue doesn't matter, or rather, can't effect the interpretations.

No, a false dichotomy just means what you thought were opposites really aren't related. There doesn't have to be a third option. Example, a false dichotomy we can agree with: cat/dog. These things are paired as opposites in many contexts, but clearly, neither literally opposes the other. One does not need a mouse to see this.

The word "is" means a definition, how can you say something IS what it no longer is?


well... i don't want to get into it, but while it might not be a creation story, biological elements are subject to the laws of evolution.

and Black didn't always mean that, the absence of color? Thats only a recent realization. What about the connotations of black, they're certainly not uniform.
I disagree. Proof? All words started out as meaningless arbitrary assignments. And those words have ALL changed throughout history to mean other and different things. The process you're talking about in this quote, where people get together and agree on a definition, is what had to take place to start the definition of the word. All words start this way, an assignment of a sound to a definition.

Well, we know that a fetus is the potential offspring of a human. We already know...

My 10th grade teacher one day introduced me to the philosophies I am espousing. He said, long ago, people used to heat up cow milk and dance around it chanting to remove the demons which possessed the milk. To these people, that actions was surely exactly true, its exactly what they thought they were doing. Now a days, however, we call it pasturization, and we know the scientific reasons for it. None the less, the job was done and the society appeased and healthy, and for that reason neither is more "real" to the people involved and both work. There is no telling what bullshit we think is true now that we'll "know" isn't true later.

Why did the Germans have to dehumanize the Jews? to make it easier to kill them. Why did Americans call Vietnamese gooks? Or blacks niggers? To make it easier to kill and enslave them. Likewise, changing your vocabulary in this instance allows you to kill a fetus without having killed a human.

I dont think pale is being irrational, nor you being particularly rational. Nor a moral issue, so you shouldn't feel guilty. Its about adaptation. Pale is simply a traditionalist, as are many people in many regards. He thinks the "old" way of looking at this has been successful, whereas you and I see it another way. He's been a lot more rational than most people on this board, at least give him credit for that.

I give him much credit. That you argued on his level engaged him and allowed him to consider. That was great reading. But, he has been argueing against abortion for many years, and with us he has stock answers, or rather stock questions since he rarely addresses our arguements. He says that he was pro choice at one time but was bested by a pro-life arguement.

His is an interesting mind, as is your's. His reaction to you is telling. We get to see what he actually believes. Example, the mind is very important to him, given the way he rose to your's, so his claim that a mindless zygote should have all the rights of a breathing person doesn't equate.

I don't think he can address, yet, your question of what would be best for humanity, now.

If he was a character in a novel your description could not be more insightful. again, in his defense, as he and I discussed, there are a infinite number of stock answers on both sides of the equation. His fear of the world I describe, one in which words carry the amount of weight I claim they do, naturally may make an person older than myself very wary simply out of the fact that he's surely seen over the years many prime examples of where my thinking has been used to negatively impact his life. People redefine words for many reasons, and I already listed a few prime examples. I do feel that I've examined the issue and can say that though the precedence set in legalizing abortion is unorthodox and, out of context, potentially deadly nonetheless it is more rewarding to a modern society than not.

you do Ok with the book laying beside you Sub.. I have almost the same exact words in the book I'm studying right now...

__________________
"its potential, its potential, its potential because I said so, there's your proof" --- Palerider

Feel free to point out an argument that I haven't addressed marmalade. Hell, I even started a philosophical discussion because you wanted to get away from the superior scientific discussion.

If I say to you marmalade that I have 4 oranges and I give away 3 oranges and I have 3 oranges left and you tell me no, palerider, if you have 4 oranges and give away three of them, then you will have one left, have you given me a stock answer or have you simply pointed out where I am wrong?

I have answers to the stock justifications that pro choicers give to justify their positions and the answers are inarguable. Don't try and diminish the fact that you can't defeat them by simply calling them "stock" answers.

When you hold a position that the facts prove is wrong, you only have a couple of options. You can deny the facts and tell yourself that you are right in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary or you can adjust your position to accomondate the facts. A thinking person has little option when faced with such options.

When did I ever say that a zygote should have all the rights of a post natal marmalade? And once again, breathing is the mundane word for respiration. We have all been respiring since the time we were concieved so don't attempt to portray one who breathes through is nose as a different sort of creature from one who hasn't matured to that level yet.

The only right that I have claimed for the unborn is the most basic of human rights. ie. the right to live.


I already addressed it. Sorry you missed it.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

In some instances, that might be true, but not in all instances. When considering abortion for instance, those who fabricate the illusion for themselves that unborns are not living human beings have the option of referring to medical science. If one can find credible evidence to support the argument that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being, then one can rationally take sides with that evidence as in the climate change argument for instance. One side can provide credible evidence that suggests that human beings are responsible and the other side can provide credible evidence that suggests that we are not. There is an actual disupte and one can rationally take one side or another until more evidence is in.

In the abortion debate, however, I can provide all manner of credible science that states explicitly that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved while the pro choice side can provide nothing in the way of credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. One can not rationally take the side of the pro choice argument with no evidence to support the position and only easily defeated arguments for support. The fact is that available hard science on a subject defeats a philosophical concept every time.

Now it is possible to argue over whether or not it is ok, good, or bad, or in the best or worst interest of society to allow abortion, but it is not possible to fabricate a rational argument that abortion isn't killing human beings.

I am afraid that you don't understand what a false dichotomy is and I really don't want to argue about it so I will provide a definition. If this one doesn't suit you, feel free to provide another.

In a false dichotomy (also called a false dilemma, either or, black or white, the missing middle) you are presented with two choices, when in fact there are more than two choices. If one choice is discredited, then the reader is forced to accept the other choice. But this is not an adequate argument, the choice favored must be supported by evidence.

Your cat/dog example would be more accurately described as a false dilemma, or being put on the horns of a false dilemma. All of these assume, however that the available evidence doesn't support one or the other. In the case of unborns, the avialiable evidence supports the proposition that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved. If the avialiable evidence clearly supports a position, no false dichotomy or false dilemma exists.

No. The word is is the third person singular present of be. It does not mean a definiton. The reality of a color or condition that lacks hue or brighness and reflects no spectral colors exists and remains unchanged no matter what you care to call it.

There are no "laws" of evolution.

But in reality, there always was a condition of the absence of color. The words that various cultures througout time have used to describe it have been equally irrelavent to the reality of its existence.

Blæc, blakkr, sweart, zwart, μαύρος, чернота, noir and even 黑色 all describe the same reality. A color or condition that lacks hue or brighness and reflects no spectral colors. The reality has remained the same no matter what words have been used to describe it.

Of course it is your prerogative to disagree, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. You seem to be unable to differentiate the word used to describe a thing from the thing itself. As I illustrated above, you can describe black with any number of words from any number of cultures or times, but the reality of a color or condition that lacks hue or brighness and reflects no spectral colors remains the same.

No. We know that a fetus is the offspring of a human being. Potential describes possible, as opposed to actual. The child exists, it is actual, and is the product of sperm and egg so it is offspring even though it is not yet born. Being born only deliniates the time known as prenatal from the time known as post natal. The being is the same being during either period. Its essential nature is the same during either period. The only changes are those brought about by growth and maturity.

Again, you are confusing the words (or actions) with the reality. The people may have believed they were driving out demons when what they were really doing was killing bacteria. The bacteria were bacteria even if the word demon was used to describe them. The reality of what was happening in the milk when it was heated was not changed by the words that are used to describe the process.

But, gooks were human beings, niggers are human beings and juden were human beings. It may have made it easier to kill them and might have relieved the ones who were doing the killing, or directing the killing of the immediate guilt or whatever feelings that one might normally feel as the result of killing but the reality is that no matter what word they used to describe what they were killing, it was still human beings and no matter how hard you try to deny that unborns are living human beings, the reality reamains.

The reality remains that the fetus is a living human being and the deception fabricated in an attempt to portray them as something other than human beings is nothing more than an attempt to make killing children acceptable to people who would not find it acceptable to kill children. They are what they are and until both sides can hash out what is being killed, no meaningful discussion can be had as to the inherent merits or demerits of killing them and the only way to reach that point is to cut through the deceptions fabricated by the pro choice side and face the reality.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

what book? are you saying I plagiarized my post?


Pale--

There is no difference between the words we use and the things they describe. Language, as the philosopher Donald Davidson says, is not a medium or means by which we hint upon reality. It is a means by which we create our own.

You asked for philosophy, yet reply with science? I don't even really want to continue the quote war back and forth. My position has a few key points which you've yet to unmask (of course its impossible to unmask them, as I would have done it already). Firstly, that it is up to us to define what we assign the word Human Being to, and it is that assignment which will determine weather or not something is a Human, not a strand of sequenced proteins. This is not a science debate, your argument is mute, its not within the confines or context of this debate you set up.
This is the only step left for you, prove your case without metaphysics and you win! Thats all you need to do, come up with a concrete ametaphysical reason, and I'm afraid you might not be able to think that way. Not to sound condescending, its just it takes some practice and familiarity you don't have, else I wouldve seen the argument already.

Also, you're wrong about a false dichotomy. Its not about the alternative, but the relationship between the two opposed supposed dichotomies. Third answer or no answer or a million answers are irrelevant.

Call it whatever , doesn't matter to me..

__________________
"its potential, its potential, its potential because I said so, there's your proof" --- Palerider

Ask her which book she is reading that resembles the thought behind your argument. Invariably she will say something to the effect that she doesn't have to tell you what she is reading or any of a number of other childish responses rather than simply stating title and author. This is just more of her need to be demeaned expressing itself.


If you accept that we create our own reality, then why would you object to women killing children that they obviously want at some level? Obviously, their pregnancy is reality and if we create our own reality, then the pregnancy must be something they want and need. If you accept that we create our own reality, then you should rightly object even to women who are raped and become pregnant aborting since they created the rape and the pregnancy out of a desire for it.

Further, if you were actually able to create your own reality, you would be immune from consequence. You could do whatever you wish without regard for the ramifications. Clearly, this is not the case in the real world.

Take a second and contemplate your reality. There isn't a single iota of you, your surrounding environment, or your supposedly self created reality that is a product of even the slightest sense of "self creation". It is all there and has always been there with or without any sort of active participation on your part. This reality that you create for your self was already there for you and everyone else.

The fact is that we don't create our own reality. It is easy to say but in practice, it just isn't so.

Didn't you say that science was philosophy? Never mind. Irrelavent.

Masked key points. That is interesting. Why would you feel the need to hide your key points and if you, yourself find it impossible to unmask them, of what value are they? Are they even key points at all and not irrelavancies wearing the mask of key points?

Now why would I be required to come up with a defense of my postion that involves no abstract thought when your entire position is nothing but abstract thought? A discussion of hard science is by definition ametaphysical and you have stated that you aren't interested in such conversation.

The reality is that I have already won. I won before I even started or I wouldn't have joined in the first place. We are what we are, things are what they are irregardless of the words we use to describe them and unborns are what they are. The topic of this thread was whether or not you can change the reality of a thing by applying a philosophical concept to it. Clearly you can't. You can change the words you use to describe it, but clearly you can not change the thing itself. A condition of no color or darkness that has no hue or brightness and reflects no spectral color is what it is no matter how many different words or phrases you use to describe it. The essential "It" remains unchanged.

Unborns are what they are and no meaningful discussion of the intrinsic good or bad to society of killing them can be had until some agreement is reached on exactly what they are and the only way that will happen is for me to join you in the illusion, or for you to join me in reality. I am not afraid of reality, how about you? Shed your illusion and then we can talk about whether it is in society's best interest to allow women to kill thier children without legal conseqnece for any or no reason.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma