Why should i take any notice of this given your deep and oft-stated contempt for any human laws which don't happen to fit in with your particular ideology?  If, as you say, a government has no authority to give or take away the right to life, then why should the same not be true of the right to personal authority over ones physical body?

Awww, so you are completely OK with 5 year olds smoking, or drug addiction, or the taking of hallucinigens, or underage alcohol consumption? I can easily throw this reasoning back in your face by asking why should I take notice of your hesitancy to violate a woman's supposed 'right' given that the justification for everything you've ever said in this thread amounts to just your opinion where your desire to have abortion an option is debatebly motivated by selfishness towards your life-style?

It's pretty much the fact that one doesn't have personal authority over one's own body in a certain set of circumstances where you fail. It's not a transcendant right. And to clarify, my contempt is for human laws that are unjust and violate an inherent right. It's the same contempt that motivated people against slavery and segregation. If you think you can brush those arguments aside for the same reason then that just shows you're inherently closed minded and lack critical thinking.

Also, i don't wish to make any unjustified assumptions, but there are such things as 'belief bundles' - when one believes in objective morality one is likely to also believe in god, for instance - and a belief in the morality of capital punishment would seem to fit with your other attitudes as stated on this forum.  Would the death penalty not be an example of a government meddling in the 'transcendent' right to life?

*snort* Not really, or what can be said is that it is a just meddling with the right to life. As the death penalty is a punishment in a specific circumstance where one willingly and premeditatively takes the lives of others, in effect the criminal willingly forfeits his right to life. And unfortunately for you, 'rights' don't work without an objective set of right and wrong. As a 'right' is a just claim to something it doesn't work without an objective standard. The entire concept of justice contradicts reletavisim. But this is just one of many aspects to government that contradicts atheism.

On that topic, with your recently-discovered sensitivity to other people's points of view, you must realise that the concept of transcendent rights and Higher Law have very little resonance with the atheist-relativist crowd.  i agree that the right to life is more important than the right to vote/procreate/whatever, but i don't see it written in the clouds in the same way that you do.  As such, the comparison i made seems perfectly valid to me.

Not really, as most of the time when I make this line of reasoning I throw in "Nature's law" as well. Even atheists have been known to accept that there are rules above government as they dictate to government behavior and were the citizens are justified in opposing the government or their country. Otherwise as you state the right to life is just opinion. In which case a sovereign government like Germany and Iraq were justified to take innocent people's lives.

So perhaps you could explain to me what difference i would notice between a society where a man-made right was taken away by a change in government law, and a society where a 'transcendent' right was taken away by a change in government law?

You'd see a society were practices similar to slavery and the Holocaust are performed as opposed to a society that banned the drinking of alcohol. One showing a desregard for human life, dignity, and value, as opposed to the other simply having an impact on a life-style or personal behavior. Though you still face the problem that even if you think the right to life is a man-made law you still have no grounds to object when the man-made right to abortion is taken away.

Going back to my previous post to you, you have still not addressed my charge of inconsistency in your view of what makes a human being a human being.  From your stated position on this topic, you have no grounds for excluding brain-dead adults from personhood, and that alone invalidates your whole argument.

Must have missed it. Though this topic is a dead horse anyway as I've been continually consistent: A human being is a person by default. When a human being is brain dead that self-evidently means the human being is dead. Ergo the person is dead because the human being is dead. Though what's really interesting to note is that you're focusing on when a thing is no longer a thing, when the issue of abortion has always been about when a thing becomes a thing. What if the answer is that a brain dead human being is still a person (note I'm saying for the sake of argument)? What would you do then?

Though it's the fact that you've repeatedly been unable to refute, and have in fact abandoned these points when you started over again, the irrefutable scientific fact that a human being is created from the moment of conception as well as the Laws of Identity and Biogenesis that makes it more indicative that you're simply grasping for straws with this line.

To repeat myself:  "you can't claim that personhood is synonymous with biological human life if you exclude brain-dead adults from the equation.  It's contradictory."

Not really, as stated above you seem to be focusing on when a thing ends, while the entire issue surrounding abortion is when a thing begins. Though in point of fact I haven't excluded anything when I say a brain-dead human is a dead human being no different than when the head is chopped off or being shot in the heart or head.

What points?  My reading of the Laws of Identity and Biogenesis give me no clue as to why you think they conclusively make your case for you, and since you haven't been inclined to explain yourself then i consider that there is little of substance to be addressed in your argument.  Your continued insistence on equivocating the meaning of 'human being' (as if biology textbooks were trying to say anything about personhood!) and proud flaunting of illusory 'scientific facts' make the emperor's new clothes look like a bulletproof burqa.  

Hehe. My equivication. That's rich. Seeing how it's telling you are equivocating 'human being' with 'personnhood' the same way as saying a 'cube' is the same as 'volume'. It's telling that you are trying to make the scientific fact focus on 'personhood' when it's clearly stated to focus on 'human being' being created from conception. I've explained The law of identity and Biogensis multiple times. Though perhaps some of them were in the long discarded thread so I'll state it again as it's easy and simple:

Under the law of Identity a thing is itself and not something else. Meaning a thing remains what it is as long as it exsists. A thing doesn't change from one essential thing to another essential thing. Things don't change their essential nature, what does change is their properties. They change skin color, hair color, get bigger, get smaller, get smarter, grow appendages, grow a brain, etc. etc. These are all properties that change while having no effect on the essential thing being itself. As such when a being is brought into being it stays itself forever till it's destroyed. It doesn't become more human as humanness is not a quantitive thing. Conciousness, inteligence, and personality would all be characteristics or properties that has no effect on the nature of a thing. That's why a person can still be a person when he's unconcious as conciousness is simply a characteristic that can change. As such your whole 'potential' arguement is shot, because a human who is a person by conception.

I could even go further in this an make you're whole 'pesonhood equates to brain' line with describing another personal type of being: God. Even as an atheist you should be able to accept this concept in the theoretical. Theoretically God is a person if He exsists, creates, and has personal attributes. The attributes don't make Him personal, but allow us to identify God as the personal being that He is. As such since a transcendant Being doesn't have a physical brain, we can see that you're whole concept of personhood revolving around this property doesn't work. Personhood is a characteristic that inheres to the nature.

With the Law of Biogenesis it clearly states that everything recreates according to it's own kind. Two beings can not produce a no-being. And as your arguement amounts to say it's a no-being that can be killed, your whole arguement falls apart with this. Given how so little of your rebuttals seem to address this point or tries to put them out of context (I'm still laughing over that 'They don't say how to treat something' line) my continued remarks about this debate being over are still justified.

Now this, i am interested in.  What you are essentially saying here is that (in your paradigm) you sanction the murder of someone who is probably going to die anyway in order to save the life of someone who might be in danger.  You would take away a foetus's inalienable right to life because the mother might die?  This almost seems like an acknowledgement that the mother's life is more important than the foetus.

No it's an acknowledgement that circumstances dictate morality. Much in the same way a fire-fighter sees two people in danger, but can only save one of them. Both have the right to life, but if circumstances dictate that you can't save them both then you have to make a decision on who to save. It's a tragedy of life, but in the case of abortion if one faces the circumstances where they'll lose both the mother and the unborn child, then you have to save the one you can.

If we think of it in a modified 'Jim and the Indians' thought experiment, you can imagine being locked in a room with a serial killer and his two latest kidnap-victims.  Because he has (for some reason) decided that he likes you, he says he will offer you the life of one of these people.  He intended to kill them both, and he says that one of them in particular has to die, however, if you kill the one who he really wants dead, he will let the other one go.  If you refuse he will kill them both.

Your thought experiments always have a way of failing DB and this one is no exception as in this case the cause is a malicious agent, while as stated above the circumstances would be out of anyone's control.

Thoughts?

Plenty of them. Almost all concluding with that you being wrong.

You thing the answers will go away as long as you continue not to listen?

I was kinda hoping we'd get around to answers when the lead-up was done, but we still seem to be leading up to things.

You could note that I simply didn't get around to the post where you asked that question. But if it's come to the point where you need everything spelled out for you, then that's just further proof of this attitude of "I don't have a clue, but I can destroy it anyway." This is appalling.

It's appalling that I can't read your mind and see things how you see them without your help? I must sincerely apologize. I'll see if Psycho Mantis is perhaps taking a break from his usual homicidal mania--maybe he can help me with that.

Especially when you're whinning for your inability to look up a dictionary.

I wanted to know what definition you were using. As with many words in the English language, there are several definitions. I wanted to know if there were any particular qualities you attach to the word that might affect how your argument fits together. I also figured it would possibly help smooth things over in the "human/human being" debate. That, at the very least, turns out to be the case.

"Being" meaning the essence or quality of having existence. As I said earlier either in this thread or the deleted one, if you need to be told the difference between a human being, a cat being, or a dog being, then you need a refresher coarse in kindergarden.

*nods* Good, that's a simple definition. Now am I to understand that the grounds for your insistence that abortion is inherently wrong because it infringes on an "inalienable" (I'm going to stay away from my own views on that word for the moment) right to life, which is bestowed on a thing that is "human" and exists, alive. Excluding things that can be considered parts, appendages, or offshoots, whether severed or attached. In other words, anything that is human, is, and is alive, has this inalienable right, whether it is a single cell incapable of anything resembling thought or emotion, or a fully developed organism that lives, thinks, and feels for itself. The only requisite for having the "inalienable rights" bestowed on a "person" by default are that one is a human (not simply human), that one is alive, and that one is.

It's a simple definition that's easy enough to understand. Thank you for sharing it. Did I get it right?

No because "being" is not a quantitive kind of thing as noted by the Laws of Identity and Biogenesis. See my last response to DB.

Which brings us to the next part of my questions. Now that we know how you apply the phrase "human being" to these views, how do the combination of biology textbooks (which I doubt have any opinions or statements in regards to inalienable rights or abortion), and the Laws of Identity and Biogenesis lead one to believe without a doubt that an unborn child has an inalienable right to life even as early as the one-cell stage?

As I said earlier this parroting act may be a clever debating tactic to you, but to others of more experience it simply shows your inability to carry out your own argument. THough it does make your responses more amusing. I have to laugh at such redundancy as saying "a tree is inexcusably a tree". Once again Trent: "Duh". You're still missing the point where a thing is itself. There is no being called "tree" as there is no being called "adult". Which is again what you are amounting to as both are simply stages of life.

*shrugs* I was never taking the oak argument very seriously anyway, so in the interest of keeping things on track I'll drop that.

I fail to see why you are so vehement about echoes when you seem to need them in order to debate.

Mainly because the repeating of Identity and Biogenesis, with occasional textbooks thrown in for a bit of variety, without explaining how the three make your case, was frankly irritating me. I have a tendency to slip into an immature mood when I'm not taking a person very seriously, and I was taking things less and less seriously with each successive post. It took the realization of my own frustration at the ad hominems flying around coupled with the ad hominems I was coming to use to snap me out of it.

As my definition of being has remained constent on that it exsists and has essence I have never meant anything differently.

Except since you never explained it, I (and possibly Dannyboy) were attaching certain defining characteristics to the thing that is. One could say my definition of being was more akin to "entity" than being; the kind of noun one always attaches to things like "human being, omnipotent being, extraterrestrial being..." more or less the "living thing" definition but, one that denotes a certain level of self to the one it's attached to. Gah, it's difficult to explain words with words sometimes. It's a meaning that's been attached to the word for all the time I've known it and I've never had to give it verbal form.

I would like to note a semantic problem, though. A state or quality is an adjective; "being" as has been used by all parties in this debate is a noun. I presume you simply mean something with that quality, which, from your explanation (I'm not quite buying that one yet, by the way) of the brain-dead man, is alive.

And you can see my response to DB where I can show personhood in a being that by definition doesn't have a physical brain. And as I said the only way such a characteristic is essential is in order to live. It is not essential on when a thing is a thing as by definition a aracteristic can change, while the essence remains the same.

O_o But you said that when a person's brain-dead the person is dead... isn't the body still biologically alive, though?

Good because as part of the abortion issue revolves around inalienable rights, it's a question where you'd find yourself looking silly.

Because rights are things we can see, touch, and perform scientific experiments on. That's what makes them inalienable, because we know they're there outside of thought and blind emotion. I'm skipping the question because it's pointless. Neither of us is going to sway the other and it would wind up turning the debate into an endless argument about what we both believe. It's pertinent, whether these rights exist--because if they don't, there's literally no case against abortion--but bringing the possibility up against someone who won't accept the nonexistence of inalienable rights as a possibility to consider is as pointless as trying to tear down a brick wall with a plastic spoon.

Several reasons. One is that the right to life is self-evidently

Because we can see, touch, and perform scientific experiments on it, of course.

an inalienable right, as shown through out history when a people group is killed for arbitrary or, let's just say it, evil reasons.

That doesn't show that the right exists. It gives people emotional reason to believe the right exists (what horrible murders! that kind of genocide should never have happened!); it gives them logical reason to agree that such a law should be supported whether inalienable or not (if nothing else but for the good of society, we should keep genocides like that from ever occuring again); but it doesn't provide any evidence for or against said inalienable right.

Another reason being that almost all other rights are pretty much mute if one isn't alive.

I'm just going to make a minor correction to a grammar slip you've made several times now--"moot" is meaningless; "mute" is merely silent or unable to speak.

I know what these inalienable rights are due to the fact that they are laws in which all governments no matter what kind must adhere to them, and where the citizens are justified in opposing their own government if they are not adhered to.

That's not knowledge, that's philosophy. It gives a certain amount of logical weight to the rights: it's rather difficult for so many people to be wrong about the same thing in the same exact way--quantity of logic certainly adds to its apparent quality. So if most or all known cultures believed in a certain degree of right to life, it follows that said right gains significant credibility. That it's "inalienable," though, not necessarily. That denotes that it's, dare I say, set in stone. That it and all aspects and applications of it are inexplicably there, solid and unmoving, unyielding to consideration, interpretation, or debate. Such may be true in the context of your belief system, but when you step outside of that context and start discussing the matter in the context of governmental law or societal attitude... it's not so applicable.

The "right to life" has certainly made it as far as those two contexts go, to a point. It's generally agreed by society that humans, at least from birth onward and even earlier than that amongst myself and Dannyboy, have a right to life; it's granted by the government via laws against murder and so forth that humans have a right to life, until they break certain laws or impede another's right to life (at which point a person's right to self-defense takes precedence). These rights are not inalienable in those contexts--they depend on societal agreement and governmental law. Society can change it's attitudes and laws can become stricter or looser. The vehicle for both modes of change are debates exactly like the one we're having now (except, you know, more debate and less mud-slinging... in the best of all possible worlds, anyway).

The question of whether a right is inalienable... unalterable, unchangable, unquestionable, uncontaminatable, and indestructible... hinges on the question of whether there is some solid, objective (for want of a better word) right. That question leads to the question of why it's objective, which usually involves some higher power or authority beyond human society or government. This inevitably leads to questions of theist objectivism versus relativism and that'd be derailing like nobody's business. 

That's also how I know they are indeed inalienable as no government can take them away.

Oh, they can. They can, and have. But people will fight for them when they want them.

The right to vote is not an inalienable right for the simple reason that a communistic or dictatorship government makes the right mute by it's very nature.

It's a right that exists within certain societal structures, yes. A constructed right for a constructed system. There was no right to choose one's leader in old-school monarchies.

I know that these are sufficient to base governmental law on, because without a solid and objective set of rules governmental law simply becomes someone's opinion the same way someone has an opinion on the flavor of icecream. As such it's an invitation for anarchy.

"Objective" is a bit strong a word to use unless you mean the simple objective fact of crime and punishment.

This whole line is simply under the 'potential' argument which I reject in it's entirety anyway. It has no clear concept on when a thing is a thing.

Actually it does, just not your concept. An unborn child is an unborn child; a born one, is a born one. A three-seconds-old cell is a three-seconds-old cell (tch, I forget the fancy-pants scientific term for that one); an embryo is an embryo. In a "potential" line of reasoning there is always a clear vision of what something has the "potential" to become, otherwise there's no sense in talking about "potential" in the first place.

And as shown simply makes rights on a quantitive scale were the reasons to give more right and less right is arbitrary. It's why I say abortion is indeed a simple matter that abortionists have to make complicated in order to maintain the status quo they've built up.

That would hold more water when you give us the play-by-play on how your view works, perhaps. You've not "shown," or more appropriately to this medium "explained," you've merely "said," or "outlined," to be more specific.

I can utterly laugh at this given how the reasoning with being in the womb and being outside it is the same. The difference between a sperm and an egg and a concieved human being when the two come together is as wide as the world. When the two come together a human being is concieved.

NO. WAY. I thought it was the stork who made babies...!

That's not up for discussion. That's a biological reality. I can see the two as being no different than two halve's of a sphere being put together.

Well, except for twins and triplets and the like. More like two halves of three, a sphere and a half each, or whatever happens to apply. But that hardly matters, does it? XD

The difference is apparent and significant as when the two halves are not joined they are not a sphere by definition. When they are joined they are self-evidently a sphere.

Yet in that short time nothing has significantly changed about the thing itself except its name.

As I've explained my views in depth multiple times, I'm more inclined than ever to simply repeat myself much to your chagrin. And as I've been given no reasoning to think I'm reading too much into anything I'm not inclined to doubt every little thing. How do you know you aren't wrong? How do you know your not simply being motivated by childhood neglect? How do you know your not in the Matrix? Yatta, Yatta, Yatta. It's a sign when a person is at the end of their rope when all they've got left is a ridiculous "could/couldn't" argument. How do you know I'm not exactly spot on?

It's a little hard for someone to give you a reason you may be wrong if you don't tell them what you think and how you came to think it, though. I can't tell if you're spot on, either.

Hehe. What did you say about blinded emotion? Pathetic Trent.

So your emotion overrules mine... why, exactly?

Frankly under the scenerio of the mother having the baby and giving him/her away the only thing she'd go threw is ideally 9 months of discomfort.

I wouldn't call the physical pain and psychological trauma that accompanies a rape's resultant childbirth mere "discomfort." I wouldn't even call the pain that accompanies any childbirth "discomfort." And don't forget the significant part of those nine months where it becomes unsafe and impractical for the woman to function as normal in many situations, particularly strenuous physical ones. Could impact matters of employment, no?

You're essentially saying it's not enough to save a life it means being uncomfortable. Or your justified in killing something if it's not aware of you doing it.

If it's not capable of knowing or caring on the most basic of levels when at its most conscious, I'd say its quite different than killing a person in their sleep.

Frankly as the mother is the victim I don't see in what way it would be a 'punishment' for her. Is she going to be less raped if she had a child or didn't? Was she any less violated?

Forced to endure added consequence--I'd call that a punishment. And nine months of "discomfort" ending in an agonizing crescendo is not exactly something to sniff at, to say nothing of what goes on in the mother's mind.

Your essentially saying it's a punishment even if the mother was willing to have the baby.

If she was willing to have the baby it wouldn't be an issue, now, would it? We're talking about the ones that aren't willing to have the baby. Although even in that case I would consider the pains of pregnancy and childbirth, as well as any affect they had on day-to-day living or mental happiness, "punishment," although another word may be more appropriate.

And I don't even see how the child is punished by it, except in the case of abortion where it's punished with death for things not of it's doing. Saying any consequence is punishment is tantamount to saying every victim is punished no matter what sentence the criminal meets

Where the law forces the victim to endure the consequence of the crime, prohibiting relief from that consequence, I would call that a punishment.

*yawn* With my last response to DB you have no grounds for this refutation. But you never did anyway, as my discussion with DB clearly indicates otherwise, and you contradict yourself by asking if I'm not misrepresenting something while here you claim I haven't represented anything.

You've done a little explaining of the two laws individually (after I made that refutation). You haven't explained how the textbook definition, the Law of Identity, and the Law of Biogenesis work together, nor have you explained how the Law of Biogenesis applies to rights nor why that law makes an unborn baby a seperate person at conception. It's a given that the unborn child is being recreated into another human being--that's one of those "duh" things--but you're jumping up and saying it's already been recreated (despite its utter lack of completion) into a seperate human being that's the same in terms of right to life as any out-of-womb infant, toddler, child, teen, or adult. That needs more fleshing out if you're going to call it a complete explanation.

And as I said with the one circumstance being acceptable it wouldn't even be completely getting rid of abortion. It would simply be so restricitve that in 90% of abortion the parent would have to own up to the consequence of concentual sex.

Bwahahahahaha. Trent where is it ever said life is easy?

Where is it ever said the living can't fight tooth and nail to make it as easy as possible?

If you're saying a certain life isn't worth living then you really are courting another Holocaust since it was such reasoning that led to the death of groups of people whom Nazi Germany decided to kill because they considered the people better off dead.

I was thinking of the life lived rather than the body it lives in. Like it's more worth living in harmony than chaos, rather than more worth living white than black. Don't equivocate external circumstance with race; it doesn't work. A person's skin color is not their dwelling, income, or the incurable virus rendering their immune system impotent.

Otherwise it's no different then saying during the Great Depression the government should have killed people who found their life-styles themselves massively impacted.

I love how you take philosophies, jump to extremes only lunatics would actually take them to, and call it a refutation. I say a certain life is not as worth living than other lives, not that people should forcibly take the less worthy ones way. I'm not a proponent of compulsory euthenasia, for the record, although I could certainly sympathize with some who commit suicide. (Not enough to not try and stop them, but sympathize I can.)

Life-style is never more important than a life. And it's in fact a sign of a virtuous act when one willingly forfeits their personal comfort for the needs of someone else.

Never say "never." Living a horribly unbearable life-style, or in other words, living a horribly unbearable life, would certainly tend to make that life's owner see that life as less valuable than it could be.

Life-style is the reason the life is there in the first place--to live as well as possible. Life is not there to look pretty; it's there to live, and how it does so is its life-style. There are times, circumstances, numbering in the thousands where aspects of one's life-style can willingly, happily, justly, or otherwise equally or more traded for the well-being of other people or things. This is not the same as a life-style going completely to pot, or one's life-style being affected by outside circumstance. There are factors to be considered other than taking the words "life" and "life-style" and determining one is always greater than the other.

And as I've said there is a dividing line between teenager and childhood and adulthood, which is what your 'tree' line amounts to: a period of age. That there is indeed lines in the stages of life in a being is apparent. But as the issue is on the being itself this is indeed a strawman.

Well, sure, now that you've given us such a wide-ranged definition to work with.

In your attempt to use this oak line which even DB abandoned, all you've done is shown your equivocation and visible attempt to throw smoke.

Or shown how not explicitly explaining what you mean and how you mean it can cause a smokescreen. One of the two.

Obviously as I gave you too much credit. But as I've done so, again, with DB you have no more grounds to this argument.

You've drawn part of the line, but it's not all there yet. I'm still hoping for the rest of the picture.

Difference in this being I called you to justify your claims. If you do the same for me I'm more than willing to back them up with several quotes from you and DB.

Justify calling Dannyboy brainless, then. I have to say, I'd love to see you try that.

And as I said earlier if you take up this 'potential personhood' rubbish you are in fact arguin that there is a spectrum for human rights. That's the only way this works. And I have no problem with this when the scale is placed on something that is actually gradual but fixed like time/age and as they relate to certain rights. But as personhood is not quantifiable as I showed in my response to DB, it doesn't work.

The presence or absence of a sufficiently developed brain isn't a fixed thing?

OBviously, and who's to say one wouldn't take this arbitrary characteristic of a "functioning brain" to make it more arbitrary into a "flawless functioning brain"? On that sliding scale we talked about it would mean the mentally disabeld would have less right to life than a mentally healthy person. As such one can feel justified in killing these burdens on society.

How am I the one being arbitrary by bringing up "flawless"? You were the one who said my views should include mentally disabled people as non-people.

And to tell the truth, I'm not concerned about how placing the significance on rights would affect a mentally disabled person's standing on a slider. First off, as that mentally disabled person is presumably either a total vegetable or above the line I propose to draw, it's a moot point--which is why I say the spectrum or slider or whatever the flip it is doesn't matter in this debate. Secondly, that a line of reasoning could be taken to an extreme that you don't like, doesn't make it any less valid. Less desirable to you, me, or society at large? Maybe, maybe so. And can that affect whether it becomes a socially-agreed-upon-idea or a governmentally sanctioned one? Quite probably yes. Or maybe that will just affect whether or not society or the government ever take it to that extreme. But it doesn't make it wrong, logically or objectively.

And because I have shown so with my numerous comparisons to personhood being an inherent quality the same way volume is inherent to a sphere.

I'm not so sure a concept can be compared to a physical characteristic, though.

DB tried this by stating that they don't address how one treats the thing. Yours fails as well because theywere never about such things.

So how, then, does your entire argument not fall in on itself? That's what I'd like you to explain.

They were about when a thing is a thing. THey were about identifying when it's a human being. That's half the issue. The other half were you fail is that the issue of abortion and treatment would fall under the inalienable rights half of the issue.

...inalienable rights which I don't believe are inalienable... and a half of the issue that doesn't seem quite attached to "when a thing is a thing." The missing link would appear to be "when a thing has another thing," since humans obviously are not rights.

The nutshell boildown: You believe a human has a right to life by the sheer quality of being a living human, with no consideration to physical characteristics or development at all. We believe a human has a right to life at and beyond a certain point in development where it becomes something sufficiently resembling what it's developing into.

The nutshell's crack: You believe in inalienable human rights that are just there, and apply them to anything that falls under the category of "a living human," with no consideration to physical development or characteristics at all. In the case of the atheist/relativist proponents to the contrary, we don't even believe in inalienable rights, let alone have any opinions as to the application of inalienable rights.

...And that is the reason we're not seeing eye to eye here, methinks.

No I'm admitting that a cube wouldn't be a cube if it didn't inherently have volume.

A physical characteristic, or a measurement of one.

Thus as a human being is inherently a personal kind of being, a person is created when the human being is created from the moment of conception.

Is "personal" or "personhood" a physical characteristic?

As you've shown an inability to simply consult a dictionary,

--or to read a mind--

I'm more inclined to think I've explained myself clearly while you just don't want to listen or understand.

Well, sure, because your views are evident to you. They're sitting on the desk in front of you, winking up at you in the sunlight or the florescent lights, whichever it may be that lights them. Problem is, we're not there to see it, we're here on the other side of the World Wide Web and, as I've apologetically noted, not that adept at the psychic arts.

Nope, being a human is the simpliest way for human rights. Especially made so when you have no clear fix on what "personhood" is.

Simple is not always right. The world was awfully simple when it was flat and the sky was a sparkly dome. Of course in that case, we were dealing with something that could be proved right or wrong with sufficient exploration and experimentation.

And you're the only one claiming I have no clear fix on what personhood is. I've repeatedly centered it on being a human that has developed a functional-enough brain to think and feel on a certain, basic level. That I'm not personally well-learned in at exactly what stage in biological development that point is reached does not mean I have no fix on what point we're looking for. But I have a hard time considering a brainless, thoughtless, emotionless cell a "person."

Nope, I'm spot on as you've continuously show that you are alright with killing something even if you are uncertain about it's status as a human.

As a human? Or as a person?

And as I said this shows an inconsistengy with your position onthe mentally disabled, as the mentally disabeld can be said to be biologically incomplete.

Their brains are presumably full-sized, so biologically incomplete in the sense that a part-grown unborn baby is? No. In the sense that an embryo is? Not a chance.

To bad for you it does focus on the question.

Are we returning to "Is not!/Is TOO!"? If it focuses on the question, kindly enlighten myself and any lurkers as to why.

that's the point: characteristics have no effect on the nature of a thing. Characteristics and properties can change. The essence does not. That's the Law of Identity.

Essence?

And again we see a contradiction to the mentally disabled. Under this they are somehow less human and less deserving of the right to live as their brain doesn't work as much.

I made no mention of how well the brain worked. And if you recall, my consistent requirement has been the ability to think and feel on at least a rudimentary level. My chief reason for rejecting a brainless single cell as a person is that it can neither think nor feel on even the most basic level. Obviously an unborn baby's partially-developed-yet-working-brain does not work as well as mine does or yours does. I'm still granting that said unborn baby would have the right to life.

I don't need to be psychic to see that all this is is a veiled "shut up".

I'm not going to smile and present you with roses when you insult me, End Bringer. I'm trying to be as civil as I can without doing that, though. And a correction: the point was not simply "shut up," so much as, "Your observations are incorrect and insulting, so cut it out."

Firstly as the issue of the spectrum is exactly when a line is crossed to not kill an unborn child it is entirely relevant to abortion. Secondly as you are no expert perhaps you should have not entered a point where you have no knowledge.

No notable knowledge.

You apperently have missed the aspect of being born mentally disabled in which case it is exactly the case of brain development. Mostly this is a simple matter of where personhood is not dependant on a brain.

I can't exactly miss that point when I have a brother and a half-sister who were both born with their own (completely dissimilar, oddly enough) mental disabilities. Unfortunately, there was no way to know that such a disability would occur until after the birth, was there?

As I have gone into detail my arguement against abortion I've given you the answers.

Your idea of detail must not quite match mine, then.

Then you are indeed one. As consequences is what you live with and deal with rather than fight against. Or if you truly what to avoid them,heaven forbid, you simply change the behavior that leads to them.

You wouldn't count "deal with" as fighting against? I would, and do. That's what I mean by fighting.

Unfortunately, sometimes you can't go backwards. At such times the only option is to sit there and cry, walk forward with your head bowed in humble surrender, or charge forward, guns blazing and swords flashing. Complain, submit, or take a stand. Of the three, I find the third usually makes the most sense.

No, as I've already done another outline of the points behind the pro-life arguement to DB you have your answers. I'm willing to grant that perhaps I have not been able to make the connection clear enough (though I doubt it), but that's another matter.

Alright, then just try making it a little clearer instead of insisting we should already get it and we should be golden (if not necessarily in agreement).

Almost. Because I'm not talking about "anything that is human" I'm talking about a human. A human being.

Check my post again. Note the parenthetical "(not simply human)". I made that distinction, so I think you can drop the "almost."

Because human beings have an inalienable right to life.

Ugh. I'm afraid I can't help but groan every time that word comes up. If we could drop the issue of inalienable altogether and simply say "right to life," since you, I, David, and presumably Dannyboy all agree on a right to life if not an inalienable one, I think this discussion would go a little more smoothly. But I don't think that's going to happen, so here we are looking at things through two different colored lenses trying to insist that it's red, it's red! No, it's blue you color-blind moron! -_-

And as explained numerous times the scientific fact of the matter, and the Laws of Identity and Biogenesis determine when a human being is a human being. As I have said through out this debate there are only two issues surrounding abortion: Is it a human being? And inalienable human rights. All human beings have inalienable right to life by default, so naturally the only question left is whether it's a human being. The scientific fact of the matter and the two Laws identify that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. Thus why I've long said the debate over this matter is over.

For those who believe in inalienable rights based on such basic requisites, at least. My first question when I entered this debate before in Abortion 1 was bombed out was whether an inalienable (well, the word used was "objective," but my meaning was the same) right to life even existed, and I didn't receive an answer more substantial than "I know it's there because I'm not a moral idiot." You can perhaps see why I haven't been taking things completely seriously here, with that as my opening opposition.

I would agree that the question of whether such rights exist is ultimately derailing because it would wind up dragging us though all sorts of other, unrelated debates before we even came close to agreeing or even understanding each other's views on the matter. But is it possible to keep talking about this when one of us is working with an apple and the other an orange?

That's fair. Like many sensitive issues the abortion one can become a little more heated than others and due to my personal experience with the issue I tend to treat it with more emotional attachment than I problably should. I sincerely apologize for contributing to it.

As do I. Do me a favor and call me on it if I contribute again, 'kay? Now, on with the show...

Yes, I'm saying something that has quality. In effect "essence" or "nature". As with the brain-dead human being as the case seems self-evident that all that's happening is that machines are keeping those "life supporting systems" operating with no life left in the body because the human being is dead. I've yet to hear a refutation to my statement of the brain-dead man having little difference to having his head cut off and the machines maintaining his lower body functions.

I think that may be because you didn't explicitly bring up the term "biologically alive" and try to differentiate between that and being truly "alive." That the body can be kept biologically alive without being alive or capable of life without outside help does not necessarily mean it is not, for all intents and purposes, dead and thus dead to rights.

In contrast, an unborn child with no brain or an as-yet-unfunctional brain-in-the-building is still living in its most natural state, not being kept alive by any unnatural interference (although it wouldn't be able to live without the help of the mother's body at this point), and, if previous pregnancies and births are anything to go by, there's good chance that this unborn child will, barring complications, have a perfectly functional brain and live independently of the womb at some point in the future. There is little grounds to compare the two cases as one is of a human who would not even be biologically alive without outside help, and one is a human that is on perfect natural-living track. (Presumably, at least.)

Getting warm, am I?

DB tried that with the statment that "some" cells would still be alive. That's an easily weak argument, especially given your stand on the body parts being simply life supporting systems.

Given my stand, yes. But not given yours, and that's the pertinent matter when addressing "But didn't you say--?" objections.

That cells in a person's liver can still be kept alive even when it's cut from the body and the remains are burned to ash is tantamount to the state of a brain dead person's biological parts being still alive, but remaining in the corpse. Because as stated all those things are simply parts or characteristics that's only effect on the essence of a thing is when the thing is destroyed. As a single cell being doesn't have these characteristics that a fully developed human being has the absence of them only effects on how it's destroyed.

Quote

Because if you believe that inalienable rights don't exsist, then you have no grounds to criticize things like the Holocaust, or Saddam's use of poison gas on people, etc. etc. This is not a case of slipery slope, this is simply a statment of fact. The reason why governments of any nation can be held accountable is because it's recognized that there are rules that are above government authority.

No, I'd not say we have no grounds, merely that we have no grounds to simply point and say "That's wrong!" Things have to be more complicated than that. Sometimes one has to make the concession that it's not even an argument of good versus evil and view versus view, with the question being better versus worse rather than right versus wrong (a subtle yet important distinction).

And whether or not we would have grounds for protesting against inhumane acts is irrelevant to the existence of inalienable rights, anyway. The fact of existence is not a thinking creature capable of caring whether we can protest such things; it is simply there, or not there, like a rock, or the air. (Ah, poetry. *sniff*) So when one responds to such a question by answering, "If it isn't so, then we can do this," or "If it isn't so, then we can't tell people not to--" or anything in that general neighborhood, what one is doing is answering with emotion rather than logic or truth. One can argue anything with emotion. If emotion can be considered evidence, then I can prove the nonexistence of God even as you prove his existence beyond doubt. It would also have enabled the Nazis to justify the Holocaust even as we did the opposite, by the way.

As for Saddam, I have to admit that he's another thing I've taken little interest in. Current events tend to disinterest me, especially the downers. So I don't know anything about Saddam using poison gas.

Quote

You can't see, touch, and perform scientific experiments on love, but it's self-evident that love exsists.

Because love is something that we personally feel. But there's no definitive proof that another person loves you or someone else; based on actions and words, we take faith that it is or isn't the case, but sometimes the truth is contrary. ("I can't believe she killed him! They both looked so in love...!") We know a particular emotion exists once we've felt it for ourselves. I can personally tell you that I know that happiness, sadness, giddiness, lethargy, love, dislike, irritation, exasperation, and disgust exist, among others. I personally can't say I know hate exists, because I've never felt that; I think it exists based on some pretty strong proof, but I've never felt it. Fortunately for my speculative mind, the evidence that points toward certain emotions is quite strong.

For inalienable rights, it's not so simple. 

Quote

*snort* It was for the good of German society where genocide was performed. It doesn't matter if people's emotions favored genocide or if they had logical reason to perform it. It's recognized that no human being has the right to premeditatively take anothers life, as it's self-evident that all human beings are equal.

That doesn't answer my question.

Quote

Philosophy comes from knowledge. "Out of nothing nothing comes" is a philosophical statement that comes from our knowing that things can't be created from a total vacuum.

Philosophy comes from knowledge, but it is not knowledge. It is an interpretation of knowledge, nothing more. Interpretation can be correct, but it can also be incorrect.

Quote

It is indeed applicalple. Ad popullum fallacies don't matter. It doesn't matter if a billion people believe the right to life is an inalienable right or no one does. It notes that there are rights government or society has no authority to either give or take away. Nazi germany and several communistic governments showed what results when the right to life is not upheld. If it's not inalienable, if it isn't beyond the authority of the government or society, then on what grounds do you have to object to it?

Even if there are no inalienable rights, there are rights authority does not have the ability to remove the desire for. Life is the most basic one. 

Quote

Hehehe. "Granted by the government". Yeah right. Problem with that Trent is that 1) You seem to be missing the aspect of when a government is being created. When laws are being set up from the begining there is no government to grant rights.

At which point there are only societal agreements and/or the reasoning of the people setting up the government.

Quote

As a "right" is a just claim to something, what exactly is the system to which one is making an appeal to when the government is being created?

Usually it's either something they already agree on or something they argue about. Nobody said pre-government societies were peaceful, harmonious places to live or think.

Quote

2) Under this context you've made the government the ultimate authority of right and wrong.

I've made them the ultimate authority of law, which they are, seeing as they're the reason "law" can exist or be enforced in the first place.

Quote

I'll ask again on what grounds do you have to criticize the Holocaust or slavery as they were the laws of their respected societies?

Fortunately I don't have to. Society already did that, or is already doing so. If society forms its own government, and has the power to affect that government (by democracy, or armed insurrection, or anything in between), then society has its part to play in forming and re-forming laws.

Quote

Your opinion? Your opinion doesn't matter.

Yes, it does, but only if you act on it. Sometimes one person can't do much or anything, and sometimes "favorable" opinions are overpowered, but such is life.

Quote

In Germany Hitler was the law. Under your scenerio citizens don't have any right to change any law. Like many govermental debates I have with atheists your entire argument makes a social reformer a contradiction in terms.

When a society dislikes its government, it can (whether it has the right to do so or not) do or say something about it. If doing or saying something about it leads to change, then change occurs. Whether they have the "right" to change laws is unimportant. It happens, so it happens.

Quote

Yes, this is an aspect to government where one can lead to knowing God exsists. Most relativistic arguments simply push the problem back till it reaches the government, but fails to take into account when two governments are in conflict.

When two governments are in conflict, two governments are in conflict. There is no inherent right or wrong on either side; it's usually a case of whoever wins and what their respective governments and societies do after that. Some things occur outside the bounds of "rights" or "law," and if "rights" and "law" only exist within society, then anything that exceeds the bounds of society exceeds the bounds of that particular set of law or rights. In this case it is not a question of right or wrong; perhaps it is a question of what works better, but more often it's just a case of who wins and gets the goods, or some similar, cynical scenario. This is not right or wrong, under my view, no matter the result; it is simply a fact of life, one you can cover in chocolate syrup or sprinkle with ice-cream Jimmies all you want, but which won't change simply because you think it ugly or unwieldy. 

Quote

Unfoirtunately for you a "right" by it's very nature can't exsist without an objective standard. A "right" is a just claim to something. Notice the word "just". It's an appeal to a standard. There are only two places where one can make an appeal. Government law being one of them, as in the case of a voting if you were the proper age and registered you have a just claim to vote as it follows the standard of a democratic government. If you lived in a dictatorshipo you would not have a just claim to vote. The second standard comes in when the government itself is being unjust. This is where one can see that there is indeed a standard that is higher than government or society. This is called Higher Law and this is where those inalienable human rights come from. When society decides to infringe on these rights then citizens are authorized to oppose the government even by violent means.

"Authorized?" What the heck do they need "authorization" for? They have arms and legs, they should use them. They authorize themselves. If they should win, good for them. If not, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles--in pieces.

I have to go to work--I'll get to the rest of this later.

No, because as inalienable rights are part of the issue of abortion it's well within the subject matter. Abortionists have even been known to grant that an embryo may be a human being, but that doesn't mean we can't kill human beings at that stage. Which is why this is a clear cut case of saying you can kill innocent people for self-serving reasons: Holocaust.

Except those same abortionists make a point of pointing out the vast gulf that exists, biologically speaking, between an embryo and, say, a pre-teen Jew in Nazi Germany.

And as I said you can keep the body parts biologically alive even when you remove them from the body. The only difference in the two cases is one has those parts fully attached while the other clearly doesn't. ANd this just goes to illustrate again that what you are dealling with are parts that can change, but don't effect the nature of the thing.

Yeah, I think I got that. ^_^'

Obviously you have no grounds to say that's wrong. As such you have no grounds to do anything about it.

One doesn't need "grounds" to do anything about anything. One merely needs the ability to act. Whether they have "grounds" makes no difference in whether they act or whether they succeed. The questions of whether it's "right" or "justified" ultimately amount to nothing but whether other people agree with them.

Because clearly if their is nothing wrong with killing mass numbers of people,

But nothing right about it, either--

then they are allowed to do so.

And we are allowed to do something about it, since there is nothing wrong with that.

Nazi Germany proved that such measures worked for them. Germany was in a depression. Killing off undesirables helped bring Germany out of that depression. THey mass murdered people for the same self-serving motivation you say is alright to perform abortion.

Which is why the difference between an undeveloped unborn child and a developed person is considered key.

It's the fact that you say "inhumane" at all where your argument fails.

And why is that? Because you think compassion can't exist without inalienable rights? Or because you think it meaningless without them?

 

No, because as shown by the issue of segregation that the US faced, one is justified in acting against the government simply because they don't like it. They have to have just reasons. If they don't then they have no authority to fight against the government. Citizens may not like the price of gas as it currently is, but that doesn't give them authorization to start a civil war. And I find this attitude of "to the winner go the spoils" desdainful. You're basicly saying it would have been OK for Germany to continue on if they had won.

Nobody would have been able to stop them. You can't deny that much.

Understand this, End Bringer. In a view where there is no moral overpower, there is no authoritive "OK" or "not-OK" at all. There is opinion on the individual level, there is opinion on the societal level, there is governmental law, and there is opinion on the international level. On all four levels, there is inevitably disagreement. What becomes accepted within each of those levels is no more or less than whatever wins out. And what wins out may lose out later on. Nothing is concrete.

In actuality winning and losing doesn't matter.

Because...?

Nazi Germany was defeated, but in the Nuremburg trials they specificly appealled to the fact that they were a soverign nation whose society chose to perform genocide, and the other nations had no authority to punish them for that even if they were the victors. Under your view they would be right.

Under my views they're neither right nor wrong. Nobody had any real, definitive authority to punish them, but they had no definitive authority or right to do what they did or not be punished for it. What it boils down to is that they lost, were at the mercy of the nations, and could not reasonably do anything about it. We can say it was something higher, but I don't think it was. I'd side with the punishing nations on that one anyday, but I'm not about to say they were doing it based on some higher law.

I'm skipping the rest of your post because as the issue of inalienable rights is a fairly simple matter in which you are saying anything that can be done to another human being for these reasons can be done to you. If killing for self-serving reasons is allowed when killing an embryo, one can kill you for self-serving reasons. Which basicly describes the act of murder.

Blue lense, red lense. *shrug*
 

There is only one question I want answered: What is the difference between a human being and a person?

Human being is a biological thing. It is a mass of biological matter, an animal with specific characters that develops along specific lines. "Person" refers to the life, the mind, or for a more poetic term that is not meant to be taken literally (from me), the soul. Since I connect all of these things directly to the brain (being a purely materialistic interpreter), I naturally connect being a "person" to the functions of the brain.

I guess you could say that I see the human being as the vessel for the person... but also understand that in my view, "person" is a concept moreso than an objective thing. Reason being that only people care about persons. A hungry lion, a mosquito, a plummeting meteor, a raging storm--none of those thing cares whether you're a person or a cow or a zebra or a cobblestone. To the uncaring universe, a human is just a human, same as an ant's an ant. Just another object that happens to be alive.

IF you think that there isn't a "biological difference" between a black man and a white one, you're almost insane. If you think such diffences matter to a human beings rights than you are insane.

I said a vast difference. And I believe my choice of word was "gulf," emphasizing vastness. That was the key word, in case you missed it.

Ad popullum. There is a vast amount of disagreement in the world. A lot of people disagreed rather violently with the removal of segregation. Even if MArtin Luther King Jr was the only one on Earth to oppose segregation it would simply mean the rest of the world would be wrong.

Says who?

That's why your whole notion amounts to an opinion on icecream. You can disagree with someone's choice in flavor, but as it's neither right or wrong than you have no grounds to shove your favorite flavor down someone else's throat.

But I have the ability to do so, should I for some reason deem it worth doing. You don't need "grounds" to do something--you just need to be able to do it. "Grounds" is something that would only exist within the context of a higher law in the first place.

No. You can't do anything about it. Doing something about it is to say that it's wrong. As all your argument amounts to "I personally don't like it." your personal opinion doesn't matter. You have your opinion, a Nazi has his opinion. Under your scenerio, all are equal so there is no reason to change anything.

You can if you can. There is no higher law prohibiting the action, but there's no higher law encouraging it, either. Whether there is a reason or not is immaterial.

And as the only difference is the way in which it looks,

I imagine a single-celled organism or a brainless, half-baked bun-in-the-oven would look a good deal different than a baby after birth would. But it's not looks I'm thinking of, it's internal function.

my continued refrences to being the same reasoning that was behind slavery and the Holocaust remains confirmed. They were motivated by appearance as well.

I emphasize the presence of a functioning brain, continually invoking "thinking" and "feeling," and somehow you get the idea that my motivation is "appearance?" I'm not getting the two and two for your four. Could you fill in those blank boxes for me?

No because "inhumane" is an appeal to a standard. You are saying there is indeed a line that seperates "humane" and "inhumane". This contradicts your position that "all behavior is equal".

There can be standards. Just not omni-authoritive ones. In this case, the standard is man-made. I know what I mean by inhumane; you know what I mean by inhumane (more or less, at any rate); so I can use the word.

I'm not talking about "would". I'm talking about "should".

There is no "should" in the context of my view. The only view that necessitates a "should" is your own.

I know. It's why your standard of making governmental law the ultimate authority only pushes the problem back.

The government isn't the ultimate authority. I wouldn't even call society the ultimate authority. I reserve that title for the times.

Anarchy and sociopathy has been long pointed out to be the logical conclusions to atheism.

Logical conclusions to atheism, not the logical conclusions to atheism. Since when does logic logically have to end in just one place?

Because that you win a fist fight, has no barring on a person's decision to like a different flavour of icecream than you.

But winning that war sure stopped the Nazis dead in their genocidal tracks, didn't it? :p

Then you are simply saying people can kill others for simply disagreeing with an opinion.

Indeed they can. It happens, actually. But when a person thinks more than one move ahead in the game, they likely don't go to such extremes unless it's more or less the best choice--when such choices as "live and let live" or "talk 'em out of it" are impractical and/or fail. As a general rule of thumb, killing over an opinion would not be a vaguely practical choice unless the opinion were something of social significance (ice cream doesn't count as "socially significant").

A soul not meant to be taken literally by an atheist that is.

Not meant to be taken literally coming from an atheist, who doesn't believe in actual souls.

So anything with a brain is a person under your view then? As I have pointed out this is as arbitrary a characteristic as skin color was to racism.

I guess my use of "mind" and "soul" didn't quite put my emphasis on thinking, feeling, and personality quite clearly enough out there. (Yes, "personality." That is an inevitable by-product of having a mind, even if an undeveloped mind means an undeveloped personality.) But you generalize: not "anything with a brain" (even chameleons have brains). "Anything with a brain reaching a certain level of potential mental depth and complexity" would be nearer the mark. A creature with sufficient intelligence to match or come close to humans would probably gain my respect as a "person," but since none so far are known, I limit my definition to human brains for the time being.

So if only one human being existed he wouldn't be a person? Riiiiiight.

Such things as "human rights" would certainly be moot in that scenario, as there'd be no one there to respect them. And I don't think I need point out that the question of abortion would be nonexistent, too. XD

I said a vast difference. And I believe my choice of word was "gulf," emphasizing vastness. That was the key word, in case you missed it.

"Vast" is as subjective as it gets. Black and white are indeed "vast" differences.

Says who?

Says the concept of justice.

But I have the ability to do so, should I for some reason deem it worth doing. You don't need "grounds" to do something--you just need to be able to do it. "Grounds" is something that would only exist within the context of a higher law in the first place.

That's what would make you guilty of a crime.

You can if you can. There is no higher law prohibiting the action, but there's no higher law encouraging it, either. Whether there is a reason or not is immaterial.

And that's why anarchy and sociopathy are the logical conclusions to atheism.

I imagine a single-celled organism or a brainless, half-baked bun-in-the-oven would look a good deal different than a baby after birth would. But it's not looks I'm thinking of, it's internal function.

There's also an internal difference between blacks and whites. It's why they have different skin color in the first place.

I emphasize the presence of a functioning brain, continually invoking "thinking" and "feeling," and somehow you get the idea that my motivation is "appearance?" I'm not getting the two and two for your four. Could you fill in those blank boxes for me?

Your continued use of invoking an arbitrary physical characteristic. I never even conceded "thinking" and "feeling" are centered around a functioning brain.

There can be standards. Just not omni-authoritive ones. In this case, the standard is man-made. I know what I mean by inhumane; you know what I mean by inhumane (more or less, at any rate); so I can use the word.

Yes, I know you are appealing to a standard. That's why your being inconsistent. You are appealing to a standard while arguing one doesn't exsist. There is indeed no standard if as all man-made standards are equal and can change like the wind. All this shows is a visible attempt to ignore an inherent contradiction.

There is no "should" in the context of my view. The only view that necessitates a "should" is your own.

David already exposed your hypocrisy to this. Beautifully I must say.

The government isn't the ultimate authority. I wouldn't even call society the ultimate authority. I reserve that title for the times.

I know. Under your view there is no ultimate authority. Which makes atheism inherently hypocrtic to a large aspect to government.

Logical conclusions to atheism, not the logical conclusions to atheism. Since when does logic logically have to end in just one place?

Your continued arguement begs to differ.

But winning that war sure stopped the Nazis dead in their genocidal tracks, didn't it? :p

And winning a fist fight means you can shove your favorite flavor down someone's throat. It's obvious you're simply invoking a "might makes right" fallacy.

And no. Despite popular belief the Holocaust was never an aspect that surrounded the reasons for WW2. It was Germany's continued conquest of nations that were not originally apart of Germany prior to WW1. Under your view anyone can do it as long as they keep it in there own society. Heck, under your view there was nothing wrong with Nazi Germany trying to conquer Europe anyway.

Indeed they can. It happens, actually. But when a person thinks more than one move ahead in the game, they likely don't go to such extremes unless it's more or less the best choice--when such choices as "live and let live" or "talk 'em out of it" are impractical and/or fail. As a general rule of thumb, killing over an opinion would not be a vaguely practical choice unless the opinion were something of social significance (ice cream doesn't count as "socially significant").

Depends if it's someone who has strong opinion on what people should eat: vegetarians, etc. And the Holocaust did have social significance. Positive ones for their society under their views. You are indeed putting your sanity into question Trent.

Not meant to be taken literally coming from an atheist, who doesn't believe in actual souls.

Then you shouldn't have brought it up.

I guess my use of "mind" and "soul" didn't quite put my emphasis on thinking, feeling, and personality quite clearly enough out there. (Yes, "personality." That is an inevitable by-product of having a mind, even if an undeveloped mind means an undeveloped personality.) But you generalize: not "anything with a brain" (even chameleons have brains). "Anything with a brain reaching a certain level of potential mental depth and complexity" would be nearer the mark. A creature with sufficient intelligence to match or come close to humans would probably gain my respect as a "person," but since none so far are known, I limit my definition to human brains for the time being.

It's the fact that "mind" is not the same as "brain" where you fail. And this kind of answer only calls your sanity into question even further. As you are inevitably saying that a monkey or dolphin, which are animals that are often noted for their intelligence, are persons, but a 5-year old human being isn't. This simply makes "personhood" an even more arbitrary issue to the issue of abortion.

Such things as "human rights" would certainly be moot in that scenario, as there'd be no one there to respect them. And I don't think I need point out that the question of abortion would be nonexistent, too. XD

Nope. A person can be isolated, yet those rights still exist for him. And you fail to grasp that the question of abortion is not contigent on how many people there are in the world.

"Vast" is as subjective as it gets. Black and white are indeed "vast" differences.

As colors, yes indeed. But biologically speaking, a black man and a white man are not nearly as dissimilar as a toddler and an embryo. For one, barring other complications, and black man and a white man are usually similar sizes and shapes, have similarly functional brains, organs, senses, etc. Cosmetic differences such as facial features or skin pigment aren't as significant as the difference between a single-celled life-form and a developed infant.

Says the concept of justice.

Which comes from...?

That's what would make you guilty of a crime.

Not quite understanding the response here. It doesn't even try to address the point, which was that "grounds" only exist in the context of a higher law.

And that's why anarchy and sociopathy are the logical conclusions to atheism.

They are not the logical conclusions, they are merely logical conclusions. There are others.

There's also an internal difference between blacks and whites. It's why they have different skin color in the first place.

Internal function. Please pay attention. There is very little functional difference in different colored skin, and not a whit in the rest of them.

Your continued use of invoking an arbitrary physical characteristic. I never even conceded "thinking" and "feeling" are centered around a functioning brain.

What the heck are they centered around, then, pray tell?

Yes, I know you are appealing to a standard. That's why your being inconsistent. You are appealing to a standard while arguing one doesn't exsist. There is indeed no standard if as all man-made standards are equal and can change like the wind. All this shows is a visible attempt to ignore an inherent contradiction.

All the above shows is a visible attempt to make a perfectly reasonable statement look idiotic by ignoring it completely. One: I never argued that no standard exists. I argued that a higher law doesn't exist (or more appropriately, stated that I don't believe one exists and thus certain lines of argument hold no weight with me). Two: a "standard" in this sense is a concept. It's a "standard" that the word "apple" refers to a certain red fruit and that the word "blue" does not refer to cumquats. I'm appealing to a standard merely to get my meaning across--in other words, to a standard of language. That such a standard can exist is as self-evident as the words I'm typing now, and that such standards can change is as self-evident as the King James Version compared to a modern one. Three: The assumption that no standards exist if differing standards are equal or amendable is pure hogwash. If that were the case, the simultaneous existence of English and Japanese would have long ago caused the universe to spontaneously combust. More importantly, the existence of a standard does not necessitate said standard being right. It merely exists as a shared concept, which is what makes a standard a standard: not some higher law set in stone, but minds thinking alike.

David already exposed your hypocrisy to this. Beautifully I must say.

Yes, he beautifully exposed his lack of understanding of the difference between a moral Thou Shalt Not and a friendly piece of advice on how to competently run a debate thread.

I know. Under your view there is no ultimate authority. Which makes atheism inherently hypocrtic to a large aspect to government.

There doesn't have to be an ultimate authority for one to understand that a highly chaotic world would be neither a safe nor a pleasant place to live, End Bringer. That is the reason people choose to recognize authority: because without an appropriate degree of order to balance out the chaos, the world wouldn't be quite so tame.

And winning a fist fight means you can shove your favorite flavor down someone's throat. It's obvious you're simply invoking a "might makes right" fallacy.

No kidding. My point is that when there is no Word From Above dictating which side in an argument is right, it comes to a question of which side is going to overpower/overtalk/overthink the other, or whether they'll both just stop bickering and live with their differences. Not necessarily "might makes right" so much as "might makes victorious."

And no. Despite popular belief the Holocaust was never an aspect that surrounded the reasons for WW2.

I know that. I never said it was. That doesn't change the fact that losing the war lost them the Holocaust as well.

Under your view anyone can do it as long as they keep it in there own society.

No. Under my view anyone can do it so long as no one stops them from doing it.

Heck, under your view there was nothing wrong with Nazi Germany trying to conquer Europe anyway.

Except that Europe wasn't going to take that lying down and retaliation was bound to happen, no, not really.

Depends if it's someone who has strong opinion on what people should eat: vegetarians, etc. And the Holocaust did have social significance. Positive ones for their society under their views. You are indeed putting your sanity into question Trent.

The Holocaust is far from equal to ice cream flavors.

Then you shouldn't have brought it up.

Murder the inner poet. Aye aye, cap'n. *salutes*

It's the fact that "mind" is not the same as "brain" where you fail. And this kind of answer only calls your sanity into question even further. As you are inevitably saying that a monkey or dolphin, which are animals that are often noted for their intelligence, are persons, but a 5-year old human being isn't. This simply makes "personhood" an even more arbitrary issue to the issue of abortion.

Are monkeys or dolphins capable of anything remotely close to our intelligence?

Nope. A person can be isolated, yet those rights still exist for him. And you fail to grasp that the question of abortion is not contigent on how many people there are in the world.

You didn't say isolated, you said the only one in existence. Human rights would then be moot because there would be no other humans to respect those rights--a passing predator hardly cares if you have a right to life. Abortion would be moot because there would be nothing to abort in the first place.

In summary, the crux of our disaggreement on the matter of abortion is our disagreement on the matter of higher law. In God, in other words. In order for either of us to sway the other that abortion is wrong or not wrong, we'd first first have to convince the other of our stance on higher law. Which makes all of the other debate we'd done up to this point... to use your word... arbitrary.

God obviously. It's why I say atheism is inherently contradictory to a large aspect of government. The judicial system being inconsistent with atheism in it's entirety.

When the judicial system evokes higher law in order to justify its own existence, yes, it is. When it simply evokes the need for order in the creation and maintenance of a safe and pleasant society to live in, no, it's not.

Seems you missed the point: Being guilty of a crime only exsists in the context of a higher law. Otherwise all those mass murderers and rapists aren't guilty of crimes. They just do things you simply don't personally agree with, but there isn't anything wrong with them. Again, like the flavour of icecream.

Not things I don't personally agree with. It's not me or any individual, but society. If society at large wishes a fundamentally orderly society, a safe one, a pleasant one, that becomes the basis for their law, and when a person breaks that law within their society, then in the court and context of that law, said person is considered "guilty." They are guilty in the eyes of the masses, and in the context of society's law--not in the eyes of a higher authority, but in the eyes of the people and of the times.
 

So again, we come to mentally disabled, people with paste makers, the genetic diseased, people with nerve diseases, the blind, the deaf, etc. being on the "abort" side of the fence as they indeed have "vast" differences in their internal functions. Sounds like a plan for the "master race" to take over, doesn't it?

Such thoughts can be twisted into that sort of intention, yes. In this case the bar is intentionally set very low so that such ideas are filtered out, but if someone raised the bar, then your imagined extreme could very well become reality.

Thnking? The mind. The mind not being the brain. Feeling? That's purely evidence for a soul. You can try to equivocate on feeling threw the 5 senses being a physical thing, rather than "emotional" feeling being a soulish thing. But either way it hurts your arguement.

The mind being a result and a function of the brain, and emotion being a result and function of the mind--that being my own take on it, of course. I'm not especially well-versed in the inner working of the brain, so I can't really say much more.

And, no. Emotions are not evidence for a soul. At best they can be considered a possible result and funtion of a hypothetical soul, but it's just as easy to consider them the thing the concept was contrived to explain as it is to consider them evidence for the concept.

And as I said: If no higher law exsists, that being the objective standard, then no standard exists, as any can be made up on the fly.

The flaw in your very wording is that it implies the possible existence of standards. If one can be made, then one can exist. It must merely have a beginning.

If you said "no objective standard exists, as any relative standard can be made up on the fly," I'd agree with you 100%--but only because that's what I've been saying.

Which is the problem. Minds don't think alike.

But minds that think differently on one matter may yet agree on another. Where minds agree on a matter, snap, you have a standard agreed upon by the minds.

Sociopaths are prime examples of this. That you are arguing that you have a "standard" that says to punish them, but this does not mean your own "standard" is right means you have no grounds to punish them, and are indeed a hypocrite for it by your own arguement.

The only context in which "grounds" are necessary is your own, as I have already said. My view neither encourages nor discourages a universal, apathetic "live and let live" between all viewpoints, it simply acknowledges viewpoints as being viewpoints. It predicts and allows conflict between viewpoints, but provides no real justification for the conflict beyond "it was bound to happen." You look at that and say it shouldn't have a right to happen. But the ironic part of that idea is that, once taken within the context of an ultimately lawless world, you find that it doesn't need a right to happen. It happens because it happens, is because it is, that's all folks, thank you and good night. Arguing that is shouldn't, that we have no right to put our views forward by force or in peace, is a counterpoint that practically shoots its own guts out.

Nice try with the language aspect, but in this you are equivocating as there is indeed an objective standard of language: truth and reality. You note this yourself with the use of "apples" and "blue". Each being itself no matter what it is called in any language.

I focus on the word and its connection to its meaning in the collective minds of the people. That word-connection standard is the standard; the object would be the object no matter how many words for it there were. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," or something like that. The objective fact of existence is not the same issue as the agreed-upon standard of what a thing is called.

But in this case, there can be multiple standards attached to a single objective thing. There are many different words for "blue"--many different standards for one objective existence.

It is the same principle for concepts of morality or amorality. You take the massive objective fact of action and consequence, and put that in front of one hundred different people to consider, there can be as many as one to one hundred different interpretations constructed as to how the nuances of action and consequence should be approached. When two or more form a complete or even partial agreement on the matter and/or any of its facets, standards are born. A standard on murder. A standard on thievery. A standard on abortion. A standard on child care. A standard on charity. There can be agreement on one but disagreement on another between the same two people--so "action and consequence" breaks down into a thousand tinier questions, and a million tinier sub-standards. These standards all look at each part of the question and apply different ingredients--their own personal experiences, their upbringing, their religious beliefs, their emotional orientations, logical musings, intelligence or lack thereof--and the resulting array of dishes comes out vastly different. But in some cases similarities, mirroring elements, occur, and those become the standards.

Indeed if someone were to deny truth and reality as you are denying a Higher Law, then "blue" can indeed refer to cumquats and a certain red fruit at the same time. Much like your "it's neither right or wrong" position.

Have you ever heard of false cognates?

Incidentally, a Higher Law is not an object or something we can detect with any of our senses. When we believe it's there, it's because we believe it's there. When something is undetectible, I'd hardly call disbelief or skepticism "insane."

I'm sorry, are you saying giving a moral command (which is exactly what should/ought is) is not the same as giving a moral command as you clearly did? Or is this an attempt to nit pick that the saying isn't Thou Shouldn't Have done what David did? Don't worry Trent, all relativists are inconsistent, so it isn't just you.

I didn't give him a moral command. I was giving practical advice: doing that sort of thing is an ungraceful debating tactic. When you're telling someone how properly to swing a bat or drive a car, you tell them what they should or shouldn't do to avoid practical consequences that are unsavory. For example, when driving you should not close your eyes for any extended length of time. Do I have to explain that one? Rear-ending the SUV in front of you because you goofed up isn't immorality, it's ineptitude. In the case of nuking the thread, David lost a fair bit of credibility and a good amount of debate material that is now completely irretrievable beyond our patchy memories of it, and anyone who was not participating or lurking while the original thread was still active will have no idea what was said during its lifespan. In short, David goofed, plain and simple. Nothing morally wrong about it--incompetant or lackluster in practicality, though, that's a different story.

Likewise the emotion-fueled mudslinging. Nothing morally wrong with it in my view, but it didn't do much but feed its own fire, now, did it? It even slowed the progress of the discussion. We shouldn't do that sort of thing, not because it's wrong, but because it's stupid. Are we on the same page now?

Says who? You?

Says the simple fact that if you do not prohibit torture, theivery, murder, rape, or fraud, then torture, thievery, murder, rape, or fraud will occur unrestrained. This is not some imagined opinion, it's simple fact. If there was nothing at all stopping people from walking into another person's house, butchering the owners, and taking it and all contents for one's own, then it would happen and it would happen much more often. Fear of legal consequence is, after all, one large deterrent against crime.

Much like Cop. it takes no small amount of arrogance to think the universe revolves around your prefrences.

It's not my preferences I have in mind, but society's. There are individual exceptions, but on the whole society does not enjoy being tortured, burgled, murdered, raped, or conned, among other things. In order to prevent these things, a certain amount of order goes a very long way.

Anarchists continually call for chaos instead of government as it would be more pleasant than dealing with bureacrecy. Evolutions founding principle "survival of the fittest" practically demands it. Heck, man-made authority isn't either safe or pleasant as well as I can sight both constant examples of it either being broken, or used to descriminate or outright murder the populace.  It shows how empty man's authority really is.

It shows that it can be flawed or go against its presumably intended purpose, or be established for other purposes than making the world a better place. This is an unpleasant aspect of a fundamentally lawless world, but not a contradictory one.

So? By this you still are arguing that there would be no grounds to punish the Nazis as they were merely "victorious" but had no right to hold the Numenburg trials. As such you are simply saying the Allies should have just left them to their differences. That being they could kill those within their own borders.

1) They did not need a "right" to hold the Numenburg trials. The only view that necessitates a "right" is your own.
2) There is no "should have." The only view that contains one is your own.
3) "Could" ceases to be an issue when the "could" is prevented. Thus, once the Allies forced them to stop, they stop. They "could" have resisted, of course, but then the Allies also "could" simply force harder.

No, it was the recognition that there are laws higher than man that lost them the Holocaust. All you are saying is that in being victorious The Allies were only to dictate Germany's borders.

The recognition of an imaginary set of laws, perhaps? Have you considered that possibility?

What ultimately ended the Holocaust was the end of the war and outside intervention. Belief in a Higher Law may have fueled that intervention, but that makes higher law no more real than Al-Quaida's belief that Allah will grant them instant tickets to front-row Heaven if they mindless splatter their own guts in a suicide bombing against evil, heathen Americans fueling their own actions.

And under your view no one has grounds to stop them from doing it, as their standard that says to doesn't necesitate being right.

Under my view grounds are unnecessary. The only view that necessitates "grounds" is your own. I'm getting tired of repeating that.

Alright then. I'm glad to know if some brutal dictator starts conquoring nations you're alright with it as long as he keeps on winning.

I acknowledge his ability to do so, and acknowledge that said ability may ultimately lead the dictator to victory. I equally acknowledge the ability to resist, interfere, or cooperate, and acknowledge that said ability may lead someone else to an opposing victory. That doesn't make me "alright" with it; it simply means that I admit that it happens without sugar-coating the issue.

Sure. Heck, you can look all over the web an find arguements of how such animals should be afforded the same rights we have as they are comparitable more intelligent than the mentally disabled.

Admittedly.

I believe Spain was just recently noted for making such a law. Save the dolphin, kill the retard.

I haven't heard about that one before, but hey, it's their party. Could you perhaps relate the details of said law and some links for good measure?

Of course this goes back to how subjective and arbitrary the standard for "personhood" becomes under such a view. That you equivocate it with "intelligence" simply shows you have no clue as to what "personhood" is.

I do not equivocate it with "intelligence"--I put "intelligence" forth as an aspect of personhood. Thinking and emotionally feeling to a certain degree were the two main halves of my concept of personhood. A robot of superintelligence would not be a person to me unless it possessed emotional capacities, some semblance of self rather than just an internal mechanism capable of complex arithmetic and problem-solving.

Animals, no matter how "smart", are self-evidently not people.

Self-evidently not humans. If we ever encountered an extra-terrestrial race that exceed us in intelligence and emotional capacities, would you be singing the same tune, End Bringer?

That such a standard would say an animal is a person while allow to kill human beings is nonsense on it's face.

Nonsense because it's nonsense, or nonsense because of an instinctive aversion to killing a human being as opposed to an animal? What makes humans more important than animals, anyway? Simply the fact of being human? A soul, some higher power that values them more than the other masses of biological mish and mash that roam this little rock we call a planet? Why do we value humans? Because we're human as well, because of a protective instinct for our own species? Is that instinct even applicable when considering the question in a context of "morality?" Why do you value humans, End Bringer? Tell me that. What makes a human better than a monkey?

A person alone on a planet is indeed "isolated". Though it shows the effect is the same as someone alone on an island.

No. In the scenario of the island, there is the possibility of another human eventually reaching the isolated person. The "last living human" scenario has no such variable. Similar, but not identical.

And no inalienable human rights would in no way be moot as their would indeed be one person to respect them: the last person. He would have no right to take his own life, as it is an inalienable right that he himself should not violate. It's why suicide is considered a crime.

Suicide is considered a crime because people believe/believed it was wrong according to some sacred higher law--whether said law exists is another matter. Not that it matters--someone who kills themself is not going to be accountable in a court of law, since they can't exactly answer for their actions. "Violate," though? I would more readily use the word "waive." People can and do waive things they are entitled to--suicide could be interpreted as voluntarily waiving one's right to life. (Just as a disclaimer: I don't support suicide, but I don't view it as a crime so much as a tragedy to be prevented if possible. I also believe there are circumstances where suicide is reasonable, if not necessarily desirable.) I can't see anyone "violating" their own rights, though--the very word "violation" seems to imply outside interference, as, indeed, that is an important aspect of its meaning.

And it's the fact that animals are not under the moral laws we are that shows we are of an inherently higher value than animals.

Aren't you begging the question just a little? I mean the "fact" that animals are not under moral law? Aren't you assuming that we are? Which is... the question you're putting forward an answer for?

I would personally say that because we're capable of moral or "ethical," if one prefers that term over the other (I see no difference beyond religious implications which are, to me, completely arbitrary to anyone but a C.P.-ness freakazoid) makes us mentally more complex than animals, but I wouldn't say that makes us more valuable... mainly, because I don't believe in inherent value, seeing value as a perception placed by the perciever, as in the case of gold: gold is worthless except that we humans think it looks pretty and have for some reason deigned to make it and other "precious" objects of no notable function the core of "currency."

Higher Law, yes. However you fail to grasp that atheists have no problem with a higher law existing as they call it Law of Nature.

The "law of nature," to me, is nothing more or less than what is and what is not, in nature. It's not a law to be followed; it's simply how things work. There's a difference between the kind of "law" that tells you how things work and the kind of "law" that tells you how thing should work.

If there's any other kind of "law of nature," I neither know of it nor subscribe to it.

And really this issue has been long over. It was indeed over before it even began. In order for you to allow abortion you have to embrace insanity. Anything that can be said to justify the killing of an unborn human being can be used to justify the killing of other people who are clearly people or even yourself. It's a slippery slope that pro-abortionists gladly embrace because all that matters is getting their way.

..."Because all that matters is..."? Are we going back to ad hominems and imagined motives already? I'd hoped the ceasefire would last longer than that.

That 'order' should be upheld or even sought being contradicting to atheism.

"Atheism" has nothing to do with either order or chaos in that context. It has nothing to do with anything but the question of deities' existences. Whether or not an atheist chooses to embrace governmental order or anarchy is a different matter based on different logic. If you don't think it makes sense, oh well.

News flash Trent: "society" is made up of individuals.

But one individual can't do jack on their own, now, can they? Isn't that why it always comes down to convincing others that you're right?

It's the fact that you have to evoke an ad popullum fallacy that defeats you.

This "ad popullum fallacy" you keep waving around is the basis for our democracy's elections, I'll have you know.

FYI, "ad popullum fallacy" is a fallacy whereby you argue your point is right because everyone says so. This is different than asserting that moral standards arise from social opinion (which is just about the only alternative to Higher Law, yes?). My point was never that social opinion is necessarily right, for indeed there is no "right" in that sense, but that social opinion is decisive. In other words, it's what's considered right.

All this shows is that under your view the "masses" would be hypocritical. Criminals aren't guilty of a crime, they would simply be a minority view.

However you like to word it, look at it, or rearrange the letters is fine by me. "Hypocritical," though, no. Misguided, perhaps, if they're doing it because they believe some higher "right" is on their side. One could argue that they're simply defending the interests of the society at large over the petty lusts of one rapist or the greed of one drug dealer.

As such it still goes back to punishing those simply because of a disagreement of a personal preference, whether it be one who holds this preference or many.

Except in many cases those "personal preferences" come into direct conflict, as in the murderer prefers to murder while the victim prefers to live with their spouse and kids. On a larger scale, the people of the community prefer not to leave a potential predator on the loose. So the murder is wanted by law enforcement, hopefully arrested, and then punished.
 

Twisted? No. This is actually carrying your standard out to the letter.

Once you reach down and knock the bar up a notch or two... and then another notch... because you don't think I put it in quite the right place, and you can't limbo under it quite so comfortably...

Hehehe. Like you say you don't know much about this topic. So all you have is an arguement from ignorance that's not even worth refuting.

And your argument for the soul is any better?

In other words evidence for the soul.

I said they could just as easily be the thing the myth was meant to explain as they could be evidence for the soul, and since there's no more support for one over the other, it comes down to a coin flip. In other words, since there's no way to tell if it's evidence for the soul or if the story of the "soul" was just a half-baked contrivance made to explain the evidence, it doesn't make very compelling evidence for the soul. Are you understanding my meaning now?

No because it doesn't exist. It wouldn't be a standard that exists, but it a personal opinion that exists and is forced on others. Personal opinions not being 'standards'.

Ideas don't exist, then. These words are an illusion. This forum is empty, and has been since sntjohnny built it. We are all figments in the imagination of a lonely truck driver who dreams of being a spiritual inspiration and Christian apologist one day.

I'm tempted to think you're disagreeing more on principle than actual logic. Like, you abhor the idea of a nonexistent objective standard that everyone must follow even if they don't have any way of knowing what that objective standard even is because it's invisible and undetectable outside of some questionable holy book or religious sermon or something of that nature, so you consider any possibly that an undetectible objective standard doesn't exist to be pure hogwash. That's what I'm tempted to think, but I'm resisting. Still, I'd just like to say: that's what it's sounding like. If that's not how you feel, can you clarify your position?

And clearly you have not been paying attention.

I'm paying attention.

No you have a personal opinion agreed upon. Which in the end becomes one personal opinion against another equal personal opinion no matter how much backing either has.

Essentially, yes. The only problems here are that you see things that exist purely on the plane of ideas, interpretations, or suggestions as being ultimately worthless, and that you seem to think the human race should be mindless without some almighty over-brain to do their key bits of thinking for them. I believe neither. Left without a sheperd for a long period of time, the sheep will eventually learn to live in the wild. Some may be eaten by wolves along the way, but such is life.

Yes, you have employed a "might makes right" fallacy very consistently in this thread. That you concede that your viewpoints encourage

They allow; they do not encourage. There's a difference.

anarchy and sociopathy has also been duely noted as well as your very inconsistent admittance of argueing that standards exist while admitting your view holds the world to be lawless (no standard). Continually showing your inherent hypocricy- if the world is lawless then the notion of prisons and 'order' is contradicting.

If the world is lawless on its own, then it simply means law and order must first be created.

As such there is no further need for discussion as you have simply shown what I have suspected from pro-abortionists: to justify abortion you must embrace insanity and irrationality. But as I've said from the beginning: pro-abortionists simply don't care. The end.

Back to personal attacks. Very well, this discussion is closed as far as this atheist is concerned. Funny that embracing "sanity" and "irrationality" means turning one's back on claims of a so-called "law" that is somehow objective and yet in no way objectively verifyable, but as you will. Hopefully the two of us can be somewhat more agreeable in other discussions.