|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I have no idea what your point is.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I have no idea what your point is.
Make that two of us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 835
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 835 |
Just wanted to point out that it was a "DOCTOR" that was murdered.
His title was not "Abortionist MD".
And people who think his murder was justified because pro-life, christian, right wing, etc, etc, people gave these doctors a villifying title to make themselves feel better are no better than Tiller or the "murderer".<- see how I did that?
The rest was me rambling about more live babies for the war machine.
I thought it was pretty self explanatory.
Einstein could not even fathom the mathematical improbabilities of the Browns woes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
It definitely wasn't, I still don't know what you're talking about.
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,968
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,968 |
Quote:
Quote:
I have no idea what your point is.
Make that two of us.
3
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,968
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,968 |
Quote:
It definitely wasn't, I still don't know what you're talking about.
I think I'm reading the same page as you - and it still makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850 |
I think he was saying "thank God I wasn't murdered in my mothers womb" 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Just wanted to point out that it was a "DOCTOR" that was murdered.
His title was not "Abortionist MD".
I happen to know a lot of doctors that use their specialty as their title.. one of my best friends from college is a psychiatrist, he calls himself a psychiatrist (even though he is a doctor).. This guy was a doctor whose primary specialty was performing abortions, if he doesn't like the title, maybe he should have picked a different specialty.
But as far as titles and labels, why does the pro-choice crowd refuse to call them "babies"? Perhaps because "fetus" is less personal and less threatening... could be.
Quote:
And people who think his murder was justified because pro-life, christian, right wing, etc, etc, people gave these doctors a villifying title to make themselves feel better are no better than Tiller or the "murderer".<- see how I did that?
My opinions on his murder are based solely on what he did, not what anybody called him.
And Roeder is a murderer, I have no problem with you using that label.
Quote:
The rest was me rambling
at least we agree on that.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Perhaps because "fetus" is less personal and less threatening... could be.
It actually refers to a distinct time period during development that starts with a fertilized egg (a zygote) and ends with leaving the womb (a baby). A fetus is just another developmental step along that timeline whose name has roots in developmental biology that are older than your definition.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
and "abortionist" according to Webster is one who induces abortions... so my point is, that if one can refer to the unborn as a fetus and be correct while creating the image that it is something less than a baby, then one can refer to Tiller as a abortionist... and be correct while creating an image that that is his medical specialty.... Though I already knew what a fetus was by definition. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 294
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 294 |
Quote:
A fetus is just another developmental step
So it's along the lines of infant, toddler, adolescent, adult.
Just asking 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
But as far as titles and labels, why does the pro-choice crowd refuse to call them "babies"? Perhaps because "fetus" is less personal and less threatening... could be.
It's necessarily dehumanizing because it's a generalization.
Even Britannica calls it arbitrary:
Quote:
Biologists arbitrarily speak of the earliest stages of development of the fertilized egg. . .
It becomes blatant, especially during these discussions when person A asserts fetus instead of saying human fetus because a fetus, by strict definition, is not exclusive to humans.
One could go as far as saying the term fetus is a misnomer, because it implies a stage of development, not the animal being developed, itself.
A more technically correct wording would be a human in the fetal stage of development.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,571
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,571 |
Quote:
It becomes blatant, especially during these discussions when person A asserts fetus instead of saying human fetus because a fetus, by strict definition, is not exclusive to humans.
Hahahaha... that's like saying it's blatant ageism whenever i refer to somebody as a "kid" because "kids are not necessarily people"
Same goes for calling somebody a female, or male etc.
~Lyuokdea
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
You ignored when I said " by strict definition": Quote:
Hahahaha... that's like saying it's blatant ageism whenever i refer to somebody as a "kid" because "kids are not necessarily people"
Depending on who you're saying it to, it may be: saying it to a human child? Biologically sound, specifically in informal conditions. Saying it to a 38-year old human adult? Blatant ageism, and it very much is an attempt to assert kids are not necessarily people, or that children are less than a true person mentally, etc.,
If we're going to reference (or use) biological terms, and strict medical definitions, then they should be consistent. Not cherry pick when it's convenient.
Quote:
One could go as far as saying the term fetus is a misnomer, because it implies a stage of development, not the animal being developed, itself.
A more technically correct wording would be a human in the fetal stage of development.
Is an example of holding Draftdayz consistent to his biology reference to fetus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,571
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,571 |
Quote:
You ignored when I said "by strict definition":
No...i think you ignored the strict definition of "kid"...which can also refer to goats "by strict definition".
Thus...while informally correct - the term kid would be dehumanizing in the exact same way as "fetus" - by not specifically noting that the subject in question is human
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 02/10/10 11:19 PM.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
No...i think you ignored the strict definition of "kid"...which can also refer to goats.
No one used kid in that manner, and I certainly attested when kid is used in that manner, it is dehumanizing as I said:
Quote:
Saying it to a 38-year old human adult? Blatant ageism, and it very much is an attempt to assert kids are not necessarily people, or that children are less than a true person mentally, etc.,
However, you would need an example of me using the term kid in that manner to assert that I don't believe that, or contradict myself.
I have not, and do not.
The term fetus was referenced, formally, by Draftdayz. Let me demonstrate:
Quote:
It actually refers to a distinct time period during development that starts with a fertilized egg (a zygote) and ends with leaving the womb.
Correct, partially.
Quote:
A fetus is just another developmental step. . .
Incorrect. It should read a human in the fetal stage of development -- the stage of development is being conflated with the animal being developed, and the animal in question is human. The term fetus, in this context, is an attempt to dehumanize the human in the fetal stage of development.
It was inconsistent.
Quote:
Thus...while informally correct - the term kid would be dehumanizing in the exact same way as "fetus" - by not specifically noting that the subject in question is human
Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
But where this all started, before we got on a tangent of symantics.. is that both sides choose the terms they want to use for a reason... somebody pointed out that the right uses "abortionist" instead of doctor to somehow discredit the doctor.. probably a valid point. My counterpoint was that the left uses "fetus" rather than baby or human fetus to somehow dehumanize that act... which I also believe to be true... Strict definition of doctor, abortionist, fetus, human fetus, developing infant, kid, and goat aside... that was the point.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Incorrect. It should read a human in the fetal stage of development -- the stage of development is being conflated with the animal being developed, and the animal in question is human. The term fetus, in this context, is an attempt to dehumanize the human in the fetal stage of development.
Wow, seriously? I didn't reference any specific species did I? We have been talking about humans, but i made no mention and offered a developmental biology definition. A fetus can refer to any higher animal that gives birth. As such, referring to something as a "fetus" is not dehumanizing because it's not species specific, it's a general term meant to convey a specific time in development of many different organisms. Therefore, the assertion that your definition is more complete than mine is wrong because "it's dehumanizing in nature", when the biological definition says no such thing, is an attempt to setup a strawman and is illogical.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
referring to something as a "fetus" IS dehumanizing because it's not species specific, it's a general term meant to convey a specific time in development of many different organisms.
Fixed it for you..........I mean the fact that the term can be atributed to many organisms and is not specifying a species.....is that not the definition of dehumanizing???? I mean you are stripping the human aspect from the "human in a fetal stage" by using a term that does not specify that human aspect.
Last edited by PETE314; 02/11/10 04:48 PM.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
I didn't reference any specific species did I? We have been talking about humans, but i made no mention and offered a developmental biology definition.
You didn't mention it but DCDAWGFAN did, and you continued it, using the human context:
Quote:
It actually refers to a distinct time period during development that starts with a fertilized egg (a zygote) and ends with leaving the womb (a baby). A fetus is just another developmental step along that timeline whose name has roots in developmental biology that are older than your definition.
This is false, as I said:
Quote:
Incorrect. It should read a human in the fetal stage of development -- the stage of development is being conflated with the animal being developed, and the animal in question is human. The term fetus, in this context, is an attempt to dehumanize the human in the fetal stage of development.
In your own words, A fetus is just another developmental step, so, again, 'fetus' being any higher animal that gives birth is biologically false as well.
You're using the term fetus arbitrarily, and then asserting biological authority behind it, but it has no basis in strict biological terminology. The fetal stage of development does, however.
Quote:
As such, referring to something as a "fetus" is not dehumanizing because it's not species specific. . .
And that's the dehumanizing aspect of using generalizations, or false/vague terminology, as PETE314 pointed out:
Quote:
Fixed it for you..........I mean the fact that the term can be atributed to many organisms and is not specifying a species.....is that not the definition of dehumanizing???? I mean you are stripping the human aspect from the "human in a fetal stage" by using a term that does not specify that human aspect.
The very fact that it's not species specific or specified as a human in a fetal stage of development but merely x, especially when, in this context, it's not even called a human in the fetal stage of development but only a fetus is the definition of dehumanizing:
Quote:
Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment.
And then you confirmed it:
Quote:
it's a general term meant to convey a specific time in development of many different organisms
Again, if it's a time in a development of different organisms then it follows necessarily that the animal being developed cannot be a fetus if fetus is a specific time in development.
If individual person A is eating ice cream at time x, I don't call individual person A by the name time x.
Quote:
because "it's dehumanizing in nature", when the biological definition says no such thing
The fact that it says no such thing, or specifies, necessarily makes it impersonal, or dehumanizing. It's okay if you want to use biological terminology, or specifications, but when you use biological terminology incorrectly and then assert false/misleading things with said terminology, it borders on sophism.
Britannica defines fetus as:
Quote:
the unborn young of any vertebrate animal, particularly of a mammal, after it has attained the basic form and structure typical of its kind.
It also states the term is arbitrary because It's a period or stage of development, a fetus is not an object, or thing in itself, as you assert.
Quote:
is an attempt to setup a strawman and is illogical.
Not true, but you're more than welcome to assert it nonetheless. You have some begging the question confusions to clear up first, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I completely agree that leaving out the fact that it is a human fetus is done with the intent to dehumanize and give the perception that it is just a biological object that can be removed (like a spleen, gall bladder, or tonsils) and not a developing human being.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Again, if it's a time in a development of different organisms then it follows necessarily that the animal being developed cannot be a fetus if fetus is a specific time in development.
You're twisting (or misunderstanding, i can't tell) my words. I never said "fetus" is a specific time in development. I defined a fetus as an organism at a specific time in development and the definition would pass in any developmental biology publication. Pig's, gorillas, dogs, cats, and humans all share a time in development where they are referred to as a fetus. Again, it can't be dehumanizing since there's no reference to any specific species and the definition has been around much longer than the abortion debate.
Ok, lets try it this way. While we humans share roughly the same anatomy with a many different species, does referring to another part of my anatomy by the same name (lets say the hind limbs of a human vs. the hind limbs of a dog, or the heart of a human vs. the heart of a dog) dehumanize me? Because that's the argument you all are using. While different phenologically, it is used for the same thing and performs the same job. I could make the argument that we are infact personifying animals by sharing the words that describe our homologous organs, developmental stages, etc. and not dehumanizing at all.
Quote:
Not true, but you're more than welcome to assert it nonetheless.
Absolutely true. Even your britannica definition doesn't bring in any species descriptor. By adding in "human" you're building a strawman to make your argument with. In my original post where was I begging the question?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
First Draftdayz, let me say one thing: I'm not attacking you, or your individualism as a person, and as heated as our debates may be, or as personal as they may appear, I hope you understand that it's never aimed at you, but towards the arguments only. Now then: Quote:
I never said "fetus" is a specific time in development.
Quote:
I defined a fetus as an organism at a specific time in development
You did (twice in this one):
Quote:
It actually refers to a distinct time period during development that starts with a fertilized egg (a zygote) and ends with leaving the womb (a baby). A fetus is just another developmental step. . .
If you did define a 'fetus' as an organism at a specific time in development, I would have no objections. That wasn't the case.
Quote:
Pig's, gorillas, dogs, cats, and humans all share a time in development where they are referred to as a fetus.
Yes, correct. All of the above animals share a similar time of development, however, a pig in the fetal stage of development is not the same as a human being in the fetal stage of development. They share similarities by stage of development only, they are not the same species (or organism) as the term fetus suggests.
A human being is a human being, a pig is a pig, a gorilla is a gorilla, and a cat is a cat. A fetus is not a fetus, a fetus, in this context, is a stage of development.
Quote:
Again, it can't be dehumanizing since there's no reference to any specific species. . .
It certainly is dehumanizing. Actually, it's necessarily dehumanizing. It's necessary because in the practice of biology, it must be intellectualized for objective observation. Intellectualization is a defense mechanism in psychology:
Quote:
Intellectualization is a defense mechanism where reasoning is used to block confrontation with an unconscious conflict and its associated emotional stress. It involves removing one's self, emotionally, from a stressful event. . .
However, in this same context, intellectualization for sake of objective analysis is descriptive only, it must not be used to make prescriptive suggestions, or moral implications. If it is, it necessarily destroys the inherent dignity of your fellow man because it reduces him to, as demonstrated, a generalized fetus, or non-human (merely another animal). In some severe cases, even an object to be used as a means to an end, etc.,
It's very dangerous, and it must be recognized when discussing an individual human being in the abortion debate.
Quote:
Ok, lets try it this way. While we humans share roughly the same anatomy with a many different species, does referring to another part of my anatomy by the same name (lets say the hind limbs of a human vs. the hind limbs of a dog, or the heart of a human vs. the heart of a dog) dehumanize me?
It does not because it doesn't reference you, the being, person, or individual that makes you you: the ego, the you, the sentient you. There's a major difference between a human being, as a person, and a human being's non-sentient arm.
This, I believe, is where the distinction must be made, and DCDAWGFAN alluded to it beautifully:
Quote:
the intent to dehumanize and give the perception that it is just a biological object that can be removed (like a spleen, gall bladder, or tonsils) and not a developing human being.
Quote:
I could make the argument that we are infact personifying animals by sharing the words that describe our homologous organs, developmental stages, etc. and not dehumanizing at all.
Actually, it subtly is dehumanizing. It's a form of, as mentioned above, intellectualization, but that's fine, descriptively i.e. apes have limbs, or arms, similar to us human beings. If we study them, we may learn more about our own, etc.,
However, when we prescribe that information for betterment of human beings, we must take into the ethical philosophical questions, or conflicts of such prescriptions. The descriptive analysis, or studies must be filtered through to account for our being rational beings.
Quote:
Even your britannica definition doesn't bring in any species descriptor.
It certainly does not, necessarily. I say necessarily because the definition says it's arbitrary, and that means, strictly speaking, it's not formal, and then goes on to formally distinguish it as, biologically speaking, a stage of development.
However, you asserted it as biologically correct, and that's false. If you concede your usage of the term is arbitrary, then we have an agreement, and there's no problem.
Also, I don't mean begging the question as a fallacy such as modern usage implies. I'm strictly using the original Aristotle definition of begging the question which is assuming something, without following (or demonstrating), and building on a faulty premise.
Hopefully I clarified above which ones were.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850 |
It's a baby, lord I miss people having no common sense. 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
First Draftdayz, let me say one thing: I'm not attacking you, or your individualism as a person, and as heated as our debates may be, or as personal as they may appear, I hope you understand that it's never aimed at you, but towards the arguments only.
I'm in the wrong business if I didn't understand this. I look at this as verbal sparring only without emotional ramification. You can't know how your hypotheses stand up if you don't put them out there for review, no worries JF.
Quote:
If you did define a 'fetus' as an organism at a specific time in development, I would have no objections. That wasn't the case.
Agreed, I should've been more careful with my wording. But my intent was to inform and give a reasonable definition. Again, that definition of a fetus would pass any journal editors desk without a second glance. It's only when we start discussing abortion that people start making exceptions, in which case I guess one could call it arbitrary.
Quote:
They share similarities by stage of development only, they are not the same species (or organism) as the term fetus suggests.
Which was my point. We share something, one of many things, with all the other placental animals on this earth. So the term shouldn't have any special weight for one species and not another.
Quote:
It does not because it doesn't reference you, the being, person, or individual that makes you you: the ego, the you, the sentient you. There's a major difference between a human being, as a person, and a human being's non-sentient arm.
Then how about the repository of behavior and thought, the brain? And lets not go with a dog this time, but a cimpanzee, a sentient organism. Is calling the chimp, or bottlenose dolphin, or orangutan's (All considered sentient or consciously aware of themselves and their effects on their surroundings) central stimuli processing unit a "brain" dehumanizing to me since I have a "brain" also? Admitting we share a common ancestor, body plan, etc. with another animal that is not as intelligent as we are isn't a big deal and isn't intellectualizing.
Quote:
It's necessary because in the practice of biology, it must be intellectualized for objective observation.
Objective observation is utilized when one has a hypothesis and is testing it. Most do not intellectualize when it comes to moral quandaries such as this. Some do, but many don't. Calling a fetus, a fetus is more correct than calling a fetus a baby prematurely, and isn't necessarily intellectualizing unless the intent is there to do so.
Quote:
This, I believe, is where the distinction must be made, and DCDAWGFAN alluded to it beautifully:
Quote:
the intent to dehumanize and give the perception that it is just a biological object that can be removed (like a spleen, gall bladder, or tonsils) and not a developing human being.
And i disagree. I believe the term has been commandeered from it's original meaning and given a meaning that it shouldn't have by pro-life groups. A fetus is a descriptive word used to label an organism's point in development. Saying the word is meant to dehumanize is giving the term fetus a false definition it was never meant have, and a meaning it was never meant to convey, in order to make one's arguement. It's not dehumanizing if you recognize the fetal organism has 23 pairs of chromosomes, walks bipedally, and has dextrous forelimbs to begin with. A human fetus is still a human.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
It's a baby, lord I miss people having no common sense.
Ahh i have no common sense ... that's what the problem is 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,751
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,751 |
I still think the way to overturn is to push for men being able to have abortive rights.
If women can choose, why shouldn't men??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,571
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,571 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's a baby, lord I miss people having no common sense.
Ahh i have no common sense ... that's what the problem is
Yeah....why are you wasting all that time getting an education? You could just have developed common sense in 5 seconds, and you'd be way better off
~Lyuokdea
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850 |
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
This is from a good FAQ describing many types of fallacious arguments: Quote:
Common Sense:
Unfortunately, there simply isn't a common-sense answer for many questions. In politics, for example, there are a lot of issues where people disagree. Each side thinks that their answer is common sense. Clearly, some of these people are wrong.The reason they are wrong is because common sense depends on the context, knowledge and experience of the observer. That is why instruction manuals will often have paragraphs like these:
When boating, use common sense. Have one life preserver for each person in the boat.
When towing a water skier, use common sense. Have one person watching the skier at all times.
If the ideas are so obvious, then why the second sentence ? Why do they have to spell it out ? The answer is that "use common sense" actually meant "pay attention, I am about to tell you something that inexperienced people often get wrong."
Science has discovered a lot of situations which are far more unfamiliar than water skiing. Not surprisingly, beginners find that much of it violates their common sense. For example, many people can't imagine how a mountain range would form. But in fact anyone can take good GPS equipment to the Himalayas, and measure for themselves that those mountains are rising today.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I still think the way to overturn is to push for men being able to have abortive rights.
If women can choose, why shouldn't men??
Because it's not the man's body that is carrying the baby. I mean, we might as well take away voting and citizen rights at the same time if it means we can do something as drastic as commanding a woman to undergo a surgical procedure.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,968
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,968 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's a baby, lord I miss people having no common sense.
Ahh i have no common sense ... that's what the problem is
Yeah....why are you wasting all that time getting an education? You could just have developed common sense in 5 seconds, and you'd be way better off
~Lyuokdea
Look at this thread. It has gone from "guy one doesn't regret killing guy 2" into "I have more education than you, and your definition of X could mean Y, therefore, you might mean Z, and the definition of Z means Q plus T which therefore defies your 2, enhances my X, and demonstrates P"
Look at all the hyper educated people discussing things here: The topic is lost in all the defining.
Science at its best I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Which was my point. We share something, one of many things, with all the other placental animals on this earth. So the term shouldn't have any special weight for one species and not another.
Because we are not talking about other species...we are talking about Humans. And this is the point that we are trying to make...The use of JUST the word fetus is to setup a dehumanizing connotation in order make this human organism appear to be on the same plane as a lesser animal and therefore expendable.
Quote:
And i disagree. I believe the term has been commandeered from it's original meaning and given a meaning that it shouldn't have by pro-life groups. A fetus is a descriptive word used to label an organism's point in development. Saying the word is meant to dehumanize is giving the term fetus a false definition it was never meant have, and a meaning it was never meant to convey, in order to make one's arguement. It's not dehumanizing if you recognize the fetal organism has 23 pairs of chromosomes, walks bipedally, and has dextrous forelimbs to begin with. A human fetus is still a human.
Then why don't the abortion groups ever use the term "Human fetus" as opposed to just the word "fetus".
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
Again, that definition of a fetus would pass any journal editors desk without a second glance. It's only when we start discussing abortion that people start making exceptions, in which case I guess one could call it arbitrary.
Of course it would, the journal in question is informed about technical terms, or, as you stated, biological terms are common sense to some professional biologists, but not to some non-professional-biologists, or layman. But, by nature, we are all philosophers, and biology, or the practice of biology, is very much philosophical.
Therefore, lazy, or confusing usage of terms, outside the lab, or in conversations discussing the philosophy of biology, or the philosophy of abortion is a step towards futility. Starting with the definition of terms is a sign of good logic, and the definition of terms (and their clarity) is a stepping stone to good debate.
So, the term fetus is, technically, incorrect, and I concede it may be acceptable to some, but it must be admitted as arbitrary. If philosophically deconstructed to expose its inconsistency (its arbitrary nature), it must be abandoned for better clarity i.e. a human in the fetal stage of development vs. fetus so the confusion ceases.
Quote:
Which was my point. We share something, one of many things, with all the other placental animals on this earth. So the term shouldn't have any special weight for one species and not another.
I have no objections to this because, at times, it is necessary for objective analysis. But the objection I have is injecting impersonal terms, or dehumanizing terminology into personal, and ethical discussions where a human's dignity, or value is the very source of its controversy. So, again, not only is fetus technically incorrect, biologically, it's technically incorrect ethically, too.
All animals share the same stage of development but a human, in the fetal stage of development, is not a horse, in the fetal stage of development. So, the subjects are different, but the stage of development predications are the same.
Quote:
Then how about the repository of behavior and thought, the brain?
It may follow that all sentient beings have a brain (or consciousness), but it does not follow that all sentient beings' brains are the same, in essence. But a sentient being, regardless of its rational nature, should be treated with respect, or in an animal's case, unnecessary non-cruelty.
Quote:
And lets not go with a dog this time, but a cimpanzee, a sentient organism. Is calling the chimp, or bottlenose dolphin, or orangutan's (All considered sentient or consciously aware of themselves and their effects on their surroundings)
I question the assertion that the above animals are aware of themselves, in the sense of being rational, and able to rationally deduce their effects on their surroundings.
Here's a good read, if you're interested about this subject (maybe off-topic): A Philosophical Critical Analysis of Recent Ape-Language Studies
Quote:
central stimuli processing unit a "brain" dehumanizing to me since I have a "brain" also?
Absolutely not. I don't consider consciousness and the brain, the same thing. I consider the brain the receptor, or as you call it, the central stimuli processing unit, of the senses.
Here's an alternative way of looking at it: if ape A has a brain, and so does man A, does that mean man A is an ape because they both have a brain? Certainly not, both, in their essence, are distinct species. Both man A, and ape A may share similarities, but it does not follow that both can be conflated because of their similarities. Man A remains man A, and ape A remains ape A with distinct differences.
Quote:
Admitting we share a common ancestor, body plan, etc. with another animal that is not as intelligent as we are isn't a big deal and isn't intellectualizing.
I don't consider it a big deal, either, but I do consider it a big deal when it's implied that we still share a common ancestor, in modern day, and that our common ancestor, or link, is the metaphysics for human dignity, and ethics. Or that, because we share a common ancestor, we are bound by our common ancestor's limitations and possible savagery.
Let me put it scientifically: If scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species it follows that, we may be 96 percent similar to the great ape species, but it does not follow that we are 100 percent similar to the great ape species, we are, to a degree, still 4 percent different than the great ape species.
Is that significant? Statisically, no, but look around, does the reality of it appear significant?
When I said, earlier:
Quote:
There's a major difference between a human being, as a person, and a human being's non-sentient arm.
Is similar to comparing a human animal, with its rational differences, to a non-human animal with its irrational differences. To say it isn't a big deal and isn't intellectualizing, is scientifically correct, and necessarily intellectualizing, but ethically, incorrect, and unnecessarily intellectualizing.
Quote:
Objective observation is utilized when one has a hypothesis and is testing it. Most do not intellectualize when it comes to moral quandaries such as this. Some do, but many don't.
Which is detachment from the object in order to objectively study it, as an object, which is necessarily intellectualizing to avoid confliction of conscience.
Quote:
Calling a fetus, a fetus is more correct than calling a fetus a baby prematurely, and isn't necessarily intellectualizing unless the intent is there to do so.
It's incorrect, both technically, and philosophically. The intent of calling a baby a fetus is to dehumanize, when it concerns humans. It may not appear that way, but it's subconsciously being done regardless.
Quote:
And i disagree. I believe the term has been commandeered from it's original meaning. . .
Saying the word is meant to dehumanize is giving the term fetus a false definition it was never meant have, and a meaning it was never meant to convey. . .
That's actually incorrect, the original etymology of the term fetus was originally defined, and conveyed as:
Quote:
late 14c., from L. fetus "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from L. base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In L., this was sometimes transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. "Germania quos horrida parturit fetus," Horace), but this was not the basic meaning. Also used of plants, in the sense of "fruit, produce, shoot." The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic.
Quote:
A fetus is a descriptive word used to label an organism's point in development
Informally, yes, but arbitrarily and not the organism itself.
Quote:
It's not dehumanizing if you recognize the fetal organism has 23 pairs of chromosomes, walks bipedally, and has dextrous forelimbs to begin with.
Descriptively, no. Prescriptively, yes.
Quote:
A human fetus is still a human.
Very much so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
This is from a good FAQ describing many types of fallacious arguments:
Quote:
Common Sense:
Unfortunately, there simply isn't a common-sense answer for many questions. In politics, for example, there are a lot of issues where people disagree. Each side thinks that their answer is common sense. Clearly, some of these people are wrong.The reason they are wrong is because common sense depends on the context, knowledge and experience of the observer. That is why instruction manuals will often have paragraphs like these:
When boating, use common sense. Have one life preserver for each person in the boat.
When towing a water skier, use common sense. Have one person watching the skier at all times.
If the ideas are so obvious, then why the second sentence ? Why do they have to spell it out ? The answer is that "use common sense" actually meant "pay attention, I am about to tell you something that inexperienced people often get wrong."
Science has discovered a lot of situations which are far more unfamiliar than water skiing. Not surprisingly, beginners find that much of it violates their common sense. For example, many people can't imagine how a mountain range would form. But in fact anyone can take good GPS equipment to the Himalayas, and measure for themselves that those mountains are rising today.
Nice site, I bookmarked it. When I use the term common sense, I'm not implying it means omniscience, or that everyone should be omniscient and know everything. Common sense merely means an objective view on reality, through appearances using the laws of thought necessarily, and so, I prefer this explanation of it:
Quote:
Common Sense, Critically Examined and Expanded. It is not ordinary common sense opinion, but common sense opinion subjected to rigorous examination and criticism. It is an authentic philosophy of Realism, based on demonstrated principles of objective truth and using objective evidence as its sole criterion of truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree. I'm at the point of exhausting my knowledge in trying to explain the argument and I'm not sure I'm able to make it any clearer, which is my own failing. We may have to agree to disagree as to whether the term "fetus" is inherently dehumanizing or not.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Roeder doesn't regret killing
Tillman (Late Term Abortion
"Doctor")
|
|
