Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?

[Final-Fan]

Crono said:
"On another note, yes, the viability argument means that many prematurely born infants are not yet "human" at birth. You act as if this disproves the viability argument. It does not."

So, according to that logic, it'd be ok to terminate a pre-mature baby, as long as it required medical attention to stay alive. Nice.

"(Note that I am not pushing the viability argument myself, but Crono's criticisms of it are just stupid or blind.)"

If you think the argument is stupid (as do I), then why do you insist on defending it? Its a horrible argument, and it doesn't warrant any kind of defense.

"Until you stop trying to shove your black-and-white, all-or-nothing assumption down our throats no progress can be made here. "

Then when does a fetus become a human being? I guess arguing this point with you is moot, since you seem to contend that sometimes, even after birth, a baby isn't a human being, and can (or should) be dealt with as a sub human creature.

The frog criticism doesn't really matter, because with few exceptions, a frog is never a human being.


After reading your rebuttal, I'm having a hard time figuring out just what exactly your position is. You first say my argument is stupid, then you say the argument I was attacking is also stupid, then you bring up frogs, which have absolutely nothing to do with a fetus.

"Everyone only has their own unique personal perspective, but there is no scientific fact to claim when a fetus becomes a baby."

I freaking hate relativism. "Anything thats good for your is ok!" This is the most moronic perspective to hold. Its not a slippery slope, its a goddamn cliff wall. So there's no such thing as right and wrong. Freaking scary.

Are you insane?

Whatever the merits or faults of an argument are, I criticize mistaken counterarguments because I hate fallacious reasoning. Even if your side is right (and I think it's not) I don't want you winning the argument on false premises. Your logic is bad --> I call you on it. Also, I never said or implied that the viability argument was stupid.

Then when does a fetus become a human being? I guess arguing this point with you is moot, since you seem to contend that sometimes, even after birth, a baby isn't a human being, and can (or should) be dealt with as a sub human creature.

This makes absolutely no sense. I've made it abundantly clear that I think humanity begins at some point* DURING the fetus' development, and if medical technology is at the point that the fetus can be removed from the womb BEFORE that point and yet survive that doesn't somehow magically make the fetus human before its scheduled time. Therefore, arguing about "when a fetus becomes a human being" isn't a moot point, it's the whole point. I think that the quoted paragraph makes you a prime example of the non-rationality of humanity I spoke of earlier.

The frog criticism doesn't really matter, because with few exceptions, a frog is never a human being.

Wow, so when I totally destroy your criticism of the frog analogy it suddenly becomes irrelevant?  Or do you just not understand the purpose of an analogy?  Let me refresh your memory:
Crono: No, the only logical times to define whether a fetus is "human" is at conception or at the moment of birth. Since almost nobody thinks aborting a 9 month fetus is acceptable, the only other logical option is conception. Anything in between is impossible to logically "prove" humanity.
Rath: Thats like saying that because nobody thinks a fully grown frog is a tadpole and anything in between is impossible to 'prove' that its a frog not a tadpole it must be a fully grown frog since it hatched from its egg. That makes no sense either.
Crono: Except we do have names for those stages. When the tail falls off, its a frog.
Final-Fan: Except the tail doesn't fall off, but rather is integrated into the tadpole/frog's body in a gradual process, kinda like how the development of a fetus is a gradual process. The analogy remains valid. You have yet to defend against Rath's analogy-based condemnation of your analysis.

[edit: Well, I guess you did make a feeble attempt at a defense when you said, There are clear beginnings and ends of "Fetus", but the distinction of humanity is much more vague. So the only times we can easily make a distinction is as birth or at conception. But it is no more than feeble: Just because we may not be able to pin down exactly when it happens doesn't mean we can't narrow it down at all. If the job of narrowing it down isn't "easy" enough for you, well, there are smarter and more knowledgeable people than you (or me) thinking about the problem.]

After reading your rebuttal, I'm having a hard time figuring out just how you manage to live without any short-term memory, because you seem to forget anything older than one post ago if it disagrees with your position.

The quote you attack as being relativist does not belong to me. In fact, it belongs to Metallicube, who agrees with your assessment that human life should be defined as beginning either at conception or at birth. (He just picks the "wrong" one.) In any case, he does not say anything even close to what you claim he is saying. Don't do that.

*(Or, as Rath said, some blurry yet definable range of time)