If you think the only argument against abortion is a religious argument, please examine the pro-life case more closely. While a religious argument can be made, it is not necessary. The pro-life argument stands or falls on biological facts plus philosophical/moral reasoning. It’s very simple:
(1) It’s morally wrong to kill innocent human beings without proper justification (the philosophical/moral premise)
(2) The science of embryology demonstrates that a new, distinct human being comes into existence at conception (the scientific premise)
(3) It follows from (1) and (2) that abortion kills an innocent human being
(4) Therefore, abortion is morally wrong
If you are going to argue for abortion, you’ll need to falsify one of the first two premises above. Will you deny the moral truth that it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings, or will you deny the scientific facts of embryology?
Thinking to Believe 
February 19, 2021 at 1:36 pm
Hey Jason, it’s great to see your posts more frequently this time of year. For the sake of the cogency of this argument, are you implying that (1) would only permit “justifications of murder” that promote innocent life? For instance, if a mother were at high risk due to her pregnancy.
LikeLike
February 19, 2021 at 2:22 pm
“(1) It’s morally wrong to kill innocent human beings without proper justification (the philosophical/moral premise)”
The problem here is the assumption that a fetus, or even a fertilized egg, is a human being. Yes, of course they’re made of human cells, but so are sperm and ova, yet we don’t attribute personhood to them (or even half-personhood before the egg is fertilized). We regularly discard them without much thought because even though they’re alive, we don’t consider them human beings. Without a functioning mind, there is no actual person there, as most people would agree.
Also, what right does anyone have to force a woman to donate her own body’s resources to sustain another person? One can’t be forced to donate blood or an organ, even if one is already dead. There HAS to be consent.
To illustrate why, imagine you decide to take the risk of driving on icy roads. Unfortunately, you lose control, crash into an innocent passerby, and you are knocked unconscious in the process. Then imagine you wake up to discover EMTs have hooked up a transfusion between you and the victim. They explain that the victim will certainly die without an immediate blood transfusion, and you are the only one available with the right blood type.
Clearly you took the risk and caused the accident, resulting in someone being 100% dependent upon your body’s resources to sustain him. So does that mean the EMTs or anyone else has the right to require you to donate your blood? Of course not. Bodily integrity rights come first and you would be perfectly within your rights to stop the transfusion. Nobody would deny you that.
So how is that scenario any different than if a woman takes the risk of having unprotected sex, later discovers she’s pregnant, and then gets an abortion? Clearly she took a risk and caused the accident, resulting in someone being 100% dependent on her body’s resources to sustain him–and thus the two situations are morally equivalent.
Actually, it’s not. For most of the development of the fetus, there is no consciousness, nor even the ability to experience pain (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/), so the innocent car accident victim is actually on firmer moral grounds. Furthermore, carrying a fetus to term is far more risky for the woman than is donating blood. Yet even those facts are insufficient to force someone to provide one’s own body’s resources to keep a car accident victim alive. So how can it be morally acceptable for you to deny a car accident victim your bodily resources, yet immoral for a woman to deny a fetus her bodily resources?
You see the problem here?
“(2) The science of embryology demonstrates that a new, distinct human being comes into existence at conception (the scientific premise)”
That’s just not true. The ONLY difference between a gamete (sex cell) and a zygote (fertilized ovum) is that the latter has fused together. There is no person there, only the potential for personhood…but that is also true for gametes. Both are alive, both are human cells, but there is no scientific definition for when those cells cross over from mere unvalued cells to a becoming a “human being.” Is it when the circulatory system forms? Or perhaps when the organs start to develop? How about the appearance of external human features? Or when the senses begin developing? Or when the fetus can feel pain? The thing is, a human life isn’t a singular moment…it’s a gradual process. At each stage of development the fetus becomes increasingly human, and that’s why there are many differing opinions on when mere cells actually become a “human being.”
“(3) It follows from (1) and (2) that abortion kills an innocent human being
(4) Therefore, abortion is morally wrong”
Given that premise one and two are both arguably wrong, conclusions three and four are wrong.
This is why I think the only moral position is to leave the choice up to the woman.
LikeLike
February 19, 2021 at 3:18 pm
Thanks Andrew. I’m on staycation right now, so I’m getting some long-overdue work done!
Most pro-lifers that I am familiar with do not think it would be immoral to take a medical action to save the life of the mother, even when it is foreseen that such an action would probably result in the death of the baby. It’s called the principle of unintended consequences. The purpose of the act is not to kill the baby, but to save the life of the mother. The death of the baby is the unintended consequence.
LikeLike
February 19, 2021 at 3:21 pm
Derek,
CELLS VS. EMBRYOS
You reveal your ignorance of biology on this point. The product of conception is not at all comparable to other human cells. There is a biological and qualitative difference between a human being (an embryo) and a skin cell. It is a difference between parts and wholes. Individual human cells, tissues, and organs possess human life, but they are not human beings. As Dianne Irving wrote, “There is quite a difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess ‘human life’ and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual ‘human being.’… A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human LIFE, but they are not human BEINGS – they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman’s uterus, they would simply rot.” (Diane Irving, “When Do Human Beings Begin?: ‘Scientific’ Myths and Scientific Facts'”)
Human beings, unlike other cells possessing human DNA, are self-integrated, whole organisms with the inherent inertia capable of directing their own growth towards maturation. Embryos will actively develop themselves into a mature human being if provided the proper environment to do so, whereas somatic cells can only replicate themselves for the survival of the larger organism to which they belong.
If there wasn’t a qualitative difference between a zygote and any other somatic cell, there would be no need for abortion. The only reason people have abortions is because that zygote is a developing human being that they will have to give birth to nine months later. They don’t want that, so they kill it.
I repeat: The scientific evidence is absolutely and uncontrovertibly true that a new, distinct, human being comes into existence at conception. All that remains after that point is for it to naturally develop through its various stages (embryo, fetus), be born, and continue development (infant, toddler, teenager, adult).
CONSENT TO SUPPORT
As for your claim regarding forcing a woman to use her body to support another (and your analogy), this is just a variation of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous violinist argument. This argument is multiply flawed. It’s hard to know where to begin.
First, the argument isn’t necessary if you believe that the unborn are just cells and not human beings. If that’s what the unborn was, then I would agree that a woman has the right to rid herself of it in the same way that she has a right to remove her tonsils. But that would beg the question as to what the unborn is. Since the argument is only needed if one assumes the unborn is really a human being, do you really believe a woman’s right to bodily autonomy is so strong that she can murder another human being to preserve it? Is that what you are advocating for?
Second, when you engage in an act that naturally leads to the creation of another human being, how can one claim to have no responsibility for the human that they create? This isn’t a case where someone had a baby laid on their doorstep. They engaged in an act whose very purpose is to create children. While the person who engaged in this act may not have wanted a child, that does not mean they are not responsible for the result.
Third, everyone recognizes that parents have moral obligations to care for their children. The only question is when a person has children. Is it at birth, or conception? Since it is a scientific fact that a new human being begins at conception, then it follows that one becomes a parent at conception. If parents have moral obligations to their children, that includes their unborn children.
Fourth, if bodily autonomy is so absolute for you, then surely you would support a woman’s decision to ingest drugs into her body that could cause brain damage to her developing child.
LikeLike
February 19, 2021 at 5:22 pm
“You reveal your ignorance of biology on this point.”
On the contrary. My degree is in evolution biology and I’ve done graduate work in science philosophy. You almost couldn’t ask for better credentials on this subject.
“As Dianne Irving wrote, “There is quite a difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess ‘human life’ and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual ‘human being.’”
Sure, and there’s a scientific difference between a gamete and a zygote, but the VALUE placed on those differences is subjective. The only significant difference between them is that one is fused with a full set of chromosomes while the other is not, but there is a FAR greater difference between a zygote and any fetus or born baby than there is between a gamete and a zygote. A gamete is literally half a potential person while a zygote is a whole potential person. YOU are the one who is assigning personhood value to a specific and arbitrary stage of pregnancy. It would be MORE reasonable to assign personhood once the brain develops sufficiently to form a mind. Or perhaps when the fetus can perceive actual pain. But a single cell that has NOTHING we use to identify a human being OTHER than potential shouldn’t reasonably be called a person.
But Dr. Irving is not a scientific authority on the subject. She doesn’t provide any actual SCIENTIFIC evidence for a zygote being a “human person.” Her position is actually a subjective philosophical one. In fact, she makes that clear here: “The question of when a *human being* begins to exist is strictly a scientific question — and should be answered by the real experts, those academically credentialed in human embryology. The question of when a *human person* begins to exist is a philosophical — or political — decision, and must be able to withstand the rigors of scholarship and intense debates” (http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvnewjersey.htm). She uses definitions more strictly than we do in casual conversation, but she does recognize that personhood is NOT a scientific question but a philosophical one, and one that is highly debatable at that.
“I repeat: The scientific evidence is absolutely and uncontrovertibly true that a new, distinct, human being comes into existence at conception. All that remains after that point is for it to naturally develop through its various stages (embryo, fetus), be born, and continue development (infant, toddler, teenager, adult).”
If you use Irving’s definitions (which are NOT universal, BTW, but a distinction SHE makes), then yes, a human BEING comes into existence at conception. But you are unjustly equating PERSONHOOD to that definition of “human being,” when it is arguably not a person until it has an actual mind. After all, when a person becomes unequivocally brain-dead, do we assign it the same value as a conscious person? No, in fact the “person” is gone and all that is left is a mindless shell (which we usually allow to perish without further medical intervention). A zygote at least has potential, but it’s not even as much of a human being as a brain-dead patient.
The point is, there is no scientific definition for personhood. That’s because personhood is an ANALOG process (which progresses gradually from gamete to born baby), not a digital one (which suddenly switches on at one specific moment). You may disagree with this philosophically, but not scientifically.
“As for your claim regarding forcing a woman to use her body to support another (and your analogy), this is just a variation of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous violinist argument. This argument is multiply flawed. It’s hard to know where to begin.”
Well, you didn’t actually address HOW my analogy is flawed. Let’s just assume the fetus IS considered an actual person. How would that invalidate my analogy? After all, the car accident victim is ALSO an actual person, yet it’s morally fine to kill him by withdrawing your own body’s resources. How is it ANY different from a woman withdrawing her own body’s resources from a fetus? That is why I made such an involved analogy, to make it clear that the car accident and abortion are essentially MORALLY EQUIVALENT.
“Second, when you engage in an act that naturally leads to the creation of another human being, how can one claim to have no responsibility for the human that they create?”
How is that any different from not claiming responsibility for the dependent human you as the driver created when your actions caused him to become dependent on your blood?
“Third, everyone recognizes that parents have moral obligations to care for their children. The only question is when a person has children. Is it at birth, or conception? Since it is a scientific fact that a new human being begins at conception, then it follows that one becomes a parent at conception. If parents have moral obligations to their children, that includes their unborn children.”
Again, it’s not a scientific fact that a new human being (as you and I use the term, meaning personhood) begins at conception, it’s a highly debatable philosophical one.
Also, roughly half of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage, yet do we require autopsies for them? Do we bury miscarried embryos? Do we count embryos on the census? Does a fetus count as a dependent on one’s tax forms? No, because they’re not considered persons, just potential persons. Unborn children are not yet considered actual children.
“Fourth, if bodily autonomy is so absolute for you, then surely you would support a woman’s decision to ingest drugs into her body that could cause brain damage to her developing child.”
If she has an abortion, then ingesting drugs that could harm the fetus is irrelevant. If she brings it to term, however, and the born baby suffers brain damage due to her drug use, then she is indeed liable because she caused harm to come to an actual PERSON.
The most important lesson I think this argument should impart is that the abortion issue is NOT cut-and-dried. You may have philosophical or religious reasons to believe personhood begins at conception, but I can make at least as reasonable a philosophical argument that it doesn’t begin until the fetus feels pain or has a mind or even until it is born. And because such philosophical arguments are subjective and depend very much on one’s perspective, THAT is why I think the only reasonable position is pro-choice. If one woman believes that personhood begins at conception, she should not choose to have an abortion. If another woman believes that personhood begins at birth, she should have the right to an abortion if she so chooses.
One last note: Abortions will happen whether they are legal or not (they’ve been going on since biblical times at least…although the Bible doesn’t say anything against it). If the goal is to simply reduce abortions as much as possible, then it makes sense to keep abortions legal. This is because abortion rates go DOWN when it’s legal: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476. Additionally, contrary to what many people think, abortion rates decline when people have access to sex education in schools and easy access to contraception: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/13/abortion-law-fewer-women-having-abortions-why/1424236001/
LikeLike
February 20, 2021 at 4:32 am
As a layman, it seems like the pro-choice argument (posited here and elsewhere) is that since there are varied and conflicting scientific, moral, and philosophical arguments for when life begins, really it’s best to let the woman decide. A personal anecdote on why this troubles me: I have a friend born at 5ish months…very premature but made it with intensive support. He graduated summa cum laude from college, went to one of the best medical schools, and is now a vascular surgeon in Boston. Of course, people still have abortions past the stage of his birth, so are we saying that his mother had the ultimate authority to terminate what is incontrovertibly a successful life, one serving mankind in tremendous ways???
If it can’t be know precisely when any certain fetus is viable outside the womb, why endow the woman with the grand moral authority to make such a choice of who lives and who dies when she and her partner could have taken steps to prevent the pregnancy in the first place? (I’m talking here about women who are just not ready to be mothers, not circumstances of trauma or threats to the life of the mother, etc.)
LikeLike
February 20, 2021 at 10:01 am
Spiritual people say that God created heaven and earth and is the author of all living. They are called heavenly. Those who are not spiritual (“You are of your father the devil and he was a liar from the beginning.”) think otherwise. They are called Earthly. Leave to the Earthly those things that are earthly and leave to those who are heavenly those things that are heavenly. Only a spiritual person can discern the things that are spiritual which cometh from above and knoweth all things. Earthly persons, having not experienced the spiritual from above think and knoweth only of earthly things. An earthly person being of the earth will ask-How is your fetus doing today? A spiritual person would prefer to ask-How is your baby doing today? An earthly person would say-she is pregnant. A spirit filled person would say-she is with child. Hard sayings?
LikeLike
February 23, 2021 at 4:50 pm
“A personal anecdote on why this troubles me: I have a friend born at 5ish months…very premature but made it with intensive support. He graduated summa cum laude from college, went to one of the best medical schools, and is now a vascular surgeon in Boston.”
Well, that can certainly happen. It can also happen that a person turns out unaccomplished, a drain on society, a criminal, or even a genocidal sociopath. So I’m not sure the speculation argument works well.
LikeLike
February 23, 2021 at 4:53 pm
“An earthly person being of the earth will ask-How is your fetus doing today? A spiritual person would prefer to ask-How is your baby doing today? An earthly person would say-she is pregnant. A spirit filled person would say-she is with child.”
I’ve never heard anyone ever say “How is your fetus today.” And the use of the term “pregnant” vs. “with child” is mostly just colloquial. I don’t think you can identify a “spirit-filled” person based on their vocabulary.
LikeLike
February 24, 2021 at 5:19 am
Derek, I intentionally avoided saying that I’m making an “argument” for the pro-life position. I was just bringing up a personal anecdote for why your position is troubling to me (and probably many others). Though, still, your point is well-taken.
Let’s totally disregard the intrinsic goodness or morality (or lack thereof) of an individual. How is a viable (albeit premature) fetus ontologically different in the womb and out of the womb? Does passage through the vaginal canal or removal via cesarean section endow personhood just because a woman believes that to be the case? If it’s wrong to kill a premature baby lying in a crib, why would terminating a pregnancy at the same stage be any different just because that woman personally believes that personhood begins at birth?
LikeLike
February 26, 2021 at 2:43 pm
Derek,
“[…] when a person becomes unequivocally brain-dead, do we assign it the same value as a conscious person? No, in fact the “person” is gone and all that is left is a mindless shell (which we usually allow to perish without further medical intervention). A zygote at least has potential, but it’s not even as much of a human being as a brain-dead patient.”
You may have answered this in your previous responses, but I want to inquire anyway. How did you come to the conclusion that “zygotes” and “brain-dead patients” are not “human beings?”
LikeLike
February 28, 2021 at 6:17 pm
“How is a viable (albeit premature) fetus ontologically different in the womb and out of the womb? Does passage through the vaginal canal or removal via cesarean section endow personhood just because a woman believes that to be the case? If it’s wrong to kill a premature baby lying in a crib, why would terminating a pregnancy at the same stage be any different just because that woman personally believes that personhood begins at birth?”
The difference seems pretty crystal clear to me: if a fetus is dependent on the mother to survive, its rights do not supersede the mother’s bodily integrity rights. As I’ve noted before, even most pro-life people believe it is immoral to force someone to give blood against his or her will, even if it would mean saving someone else’s life. Our legal bodily integrity protections prevent forced blood donation, and it’s even illegal to use the organs of dead people to save lives unless they are registered organ donors.
So a baby in a crib has already been born and no longer depends on the mother for nutrients, blood, etc. That baby is a full human being with full human rights.
Most of those of us who are pro-choice regard bodily integrity rights as sacrosanct, which means abortion HAS to be the choice of the mother. Those who are pro-life, however, clearly believe that a fetus’s right to life outweighs bodily integrity rights. And I respect that. But I think that respect should be reciprocated…which is why I think the pro-choice position is the most reasonable. That way if you are against abortion…you can choose not to have one. But if you are not against abortion…you can choose to have one. That way everyone’s wishes are honored.
LikeLike
February 28, 2021 at 6:36 pm
“You may have answered this in your previous responses, but I want to inquire anyway. How did you come to the conclusion that “zygotes” and “brain-dead patients” are not “human beings?””
That’s because there is a difference between the body and the mind. Of course they influence one another, but a body without a mind is little different than a piece of meat, to put it crudely. The thing that gives us our value is not our flesh and bone, it’s our thoughts, our memories, our personalities: our minds.
As a little thought experiment, let’s say your spouse was about to suffer inevitable, imminent brain death, but we had the technology and the time to copy her entire mind into a robotic body that looked, felt, sounded, etc. exactly like your spouse–so well, in fact, that the copy would be completely unaware that anything had changed. And it would appear to you and everyone else as if your spouse was still alive. So…which of the two beings would hold more value to you: her brain-dead, biological body, or the robot who is technically not human but who is indistinguishable from your spouse in every conceivable way? Both are “human beings,” only in drastically different ways.
For me, the answer would be simple: I’d take the robot. Why? Because what I value is not the biological body, but the mind that it houses. Without the mind…the brain-dead biological body would mean nothing to me. It would be little different than living with a corpse.
LikeLike
March 4, 2021 at 10:12 am
I’m really disappointed in the pro-life posters here. You guys need to bone up on your arguments.
LikeLike
March 4, 2021 at 11:16 am
To be fair, I never intended to make an argument on this thread. If you’ll notice I just probed Derek’s presupposition on value placed on personhood rather than being. He seems to create a false equivocation of the two. I believe Jason’s argument against Derek’s position was sufficient and extensive.
LikeLike
March 6, 2021 at 9:49 pm
@Brother Andrew,
Yes, it’s clear that you in particular aren’t jumping into a full-blown debate, so my comment isn’t so much at you as it is the tendency of the commentariat here to simply drop the matter when challenged. Pro-abortion arguments are very weak, so I guess that’s perhaps why some pro-lifers tend to let the matter pass. I also realize that it’s futile to argue with some people, but if somebody is going to stake out a position, that position needs to be fully defended not for sake of those convinced, but rather for those who aren’t sophisticated enough to see the sophistry of the pro-murder crowd.
LikeLike
March 19, 2021 at 2:34 pm
“If you’ll notice I just probed Derek’s presupposition on value placed on personhood rather than being. He seems to create a false equivocation of the two.”
Well, what I said was, “But you are unjustly equating PERSONHOOD to that definition of “human being,” when it is arguably not a person until it has an actual mind.” So I’m not equating personhood (the only part of a human that holds real value to us: the mind) and human being (the cells possessing human genes). In fact, I’m doing the opposite in response to the claim that a zygote deserves personhood status. Perhaps you use different terms for the same things, but I’m not making a false equivocation fallacy.
“I believe Jason’s argument against Derek’s position was sufficient and extensive.”
Since I address and refute his arguments, as well as add points he evidently didn’t consider, his argument would require a rebuttal in order to be sufficient and extensive.
LikeLike
March 19, 2021 at 2:41 pm
“Pro-abortion arguments are very weak, so I guess that’s perhaps why some pro-lifers tend to let the matter pass.”
If my arguments were weak, they would be easy to refute, don’t you think? Yet I’ve found it easy to address those attempted refutations with reasonable arguments. If you disagree with any of my points, you should perhaps try to counter them.
LikeLike
March 19, 2021 at 2:52 pm
Derek writes,
I have both on these boards and elsewhere. First, my remarks were directed at Andrew. Second, I told you that I have no interest in debating you on any topic due to it being a pointless exercise. You will argue ad infinitum and steadfastly ignore or deny obvious logical errors you make. I have better things to do with my time. If others choose to engage you, that’s no skin off my nose.
LikeLike
March 19, 2021 at 3:57 pm
“I told you that I have no interest in debating you on any topic due to it being a pointless exercise. You will argue ad infinitum and steadfastly ignore or deny obvious logical errors you make.”
On the contrary. The reason I post on this forum is because I don’t think it’s wise to live in an echo chamber. I like to be challenged, and I like to challenge others. If anyone can provide convincing arguments against my points, I’m very much open to changing my mind, but I’m not going to simply roll over when someone makes an argument that is weak. And I do my best to avoid any logical fallacies, something I usually can’t claim for my opponents, unfortunately.
I think the anti-abortion rights position is particularly weak, since it’s usually based on religious objections that have little biblical support. And when someone claims scientific evidence to support the notion that a zygote is a person, that’s a weak argument because there is no scientific definition of when personhood begins.
If you don’t want to argue, fine. But if you are willing to argue just a single point, I’ll repeat the one I personally think is the biggest problem for the anti-abortion position because I’ve yet to receive an answer from anyone that goes beyond essentially dismissing bodily integrity rights:
What right does anyone have to force a woman to donate her own body’s resources to sustain another person? One can’t be forced to donate blood or an organ, even if one is already dead. There HAS to be consent.
To illustrate why, imagine you decide to take the risk of driving on icy roads. Unfortunately, you lose control, crash into an innocent passerby, and you are knocked unconscious in the process. Then imagine you wake up to discover EMTs have hooked up a transfusion between you and the victim. They explain that the victim will certainly die without an immediate blood transfusion, and you are the only one available with the right blood type.
Clearly you took the risk and caused the accident, resulting in someone being 100% dependent upon your body’s resources to sustain him. So does that mean the EMTs or anyone else has the right to require you to donate your blood? Of course not. Bodily integrity rights come first and you would be perfectly within your rights to stop the transfusion. Nobody would deny you that.
So how is that scenario any different than if a woman takes the risk of having unprotected sex, later discovers she’s pregnant, and then gets an abortion? Clearly she took a risk and caused the accident, resulting in someone being 100% dependent on her body’s resources to sustain him–and thus the two situations are morally equivalent.
Actually, it’s not. For most of the development of the fetus, there is no consciousness, nor even the ability to experience pain (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/), so the innocent car accident victim is actually on firmer moral grounds. Furthermore, carrying a fetus to term is far more risky for the woman than is donating blood. Yet even those facts are insufficient to force someone to provide one’s own body’s resources to keep a car accident victim alive. So how can it be morally acceptable for you to deny a car accident victim your bodily resources, yet immoral for a woman to deny a fetus her bodily resources?
LikeLike
March 19, 2021 at 11:43 pm
Derek writes,
That would be something we’d call “open in name only.” Even when very obvious errors are repeatedly pointed out to you, you have ignored it or denied it as evidenced in Even if the universe is eternal, it still needs a cause. After an episode like that, I will not venture down that street again.
As to the scenario you raise, I’ve discussed that very thing on other boards. As with the linked debate, you’re overlooking some very obvious points which collapse your entire argument. But contrary to your protestation above, you’ve proven to me otherwise.
Ciao!
LikeLike
March 19, 2021 at 11:48 pm
Well, I haven’t had much sleep lately, so I apologize for my rambling in Post 21. The last sentence of the last paragraph should read:
But contrary to your protestation of openness, you’ve proven to me otherwise, so it would be a waste of time to highlight your errors.
LikeLike
March 20, 2021 at 10:14 pm
fhu.com
LikeLike
March 22, 2021 at 5:05 pm
“That would be something we’d call “open in name only.” Even when very obvious errors are repeatedly pointed out to you, you have ignored it or denied it as evidenced in Even if the universe is eternal, it still needs a cause.”
Really? Name even ONE error I’ve made that I haven’t admitted to.
“As to the scenario you raise, I’ve discussed that very thing on other boards. As with the linked debate, you’re overlooking some very obvious points which collapse your entire argument. But contrary to your protestation above, you’ve proven to me otherwise.”
Again you make an assertion without any evidence to support your claim. And as the saying goes, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
LikeLike
March 22, 2021 at 5:45 pm
Derek writes,
And here we go again. You affirmed my statement the instant you posted that. I provided the link, as you well know, wherein it occurred numerous times. You’re simply not telling the truth when you claim to be open to evidence and will readily admit it when you’re shown your errors. People can read the link and decide for themselves. That’s about all I have to say in the matter.
LikeLike
March 22, 2021 at 7:55 pm
That’s just having no time for better usage.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 5:27 pm
Me: “Really? Name even ONE error I’ve made that I haven’t admitted to.”
Scalia: “And here we go again. You affirmed my statement the instant you posted that. I provided the link, as you well know, wherein it occurred numerous times. You’re simply not telling the truth when you claim to be open to evidence and will readily admit it when you’re shown your errors. People can read the link and decide for themselves. That’s about all I have to say in the matter.”
So you don’t have even one example. That’s what I thought.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 6:19 pm
@Derek, you keep validating what I say with your every post. I provided a bunch of them with the link. As I said, folks can see for themselves. Besides, and you know this, that’s not the topic of this thread, so I’m not going to throw down with you over that here (even if I were disposed to do so).
LikeLike
March 30, 2021 at 3:27 pm
“you keep validating what I say with your every post. I provided a bunch of them with the link.”
Hmm, you refuse to follow links others give you in the “Tempted to works” thread, but expect me to follow yours to an old thread where we argued numerous points over numerous posts? And I’m also supposed to somehow find an example of a mistake I’ve refused to admit? I thought I was quite clear in admitting I misunderstood your question about the Thomistic Cosmological Argument, but as for a specific mistake I wouldn’t admit, I can’t find one. That’s why I asked for even ONE example…which you apparently can’t find.
But time and time again you misunderstood my position as well, and you never overcame my basic objections to your claims. It ended with my noting, “And when I ask for a clear, specific argument for how the TCA rationally leads to concluding an omnipotent, omniscient God, you do nothing more than ratchet up the attacks against naturalistic alternatives, as if using ad hominem and contrived dualism fallacies constitutes a winning argument.” And it’s true that even if you could disprove every naturalistic possibility one can think of, it wouldn’t in any way constitute evidence FOR a supernatural claim. Every claim MUST have positive evidence for it, not just negative evidence for an alternative.
“Besides, and you know this, that’s not the topic of this thread, so I’m not going to throw down with you over that here (even if I were disposed to do so).”
That sounds like a dodge to me, but okay, if you insist. We’ll just have to pick up the issue again on some more suitable future article.
LikeLike
March 30, 2021 at 3:36 pm
Scalia, better yet: if you find fault with ANY of my arguments, regardless of topic, feel free to weigh in. Just expect pushback if I find your response insufficient. That should be reasonable to you.
LikeLike
March 30, 2021 at 4:23 pm
Derek writes,
Disanalogous. You previously asked for examples of obvious errors that were pointed out to you, and I simply supplied them and said that others who were interested could verify for themselves whether my claim is true. I wasn’t asking Paul for a link, and he was clearly using it in place of argument. Not nearly the same thing, Derek, but I suppose you’ll refuse to see that too.
I’m perfectly content with allowing the readers here to judge for themselves the matter. And if you had a modicum of integrity, you would have said the same thing. All you need to say is, “Well, Scalia, I obviously disagree with you, and I too am perfectly content to let others judge the matter. If you don’t want to debate, no skin off my nose.” But you can’t do that, Derek, which tells me loudly and clearly that you haven’t changed one bit and that it’s useless to debate with you.
You asked for examples, and I provided the link which contain quite a few examples of pointing out your fallacious arguments. I don’t need to itemize them here because, as you’ve been told, that’s a violation of this site’s TOS. In fact, we’re technically violating it now. You know that and you don’t care. You’re so full of hubris, you’ve got to defend your “face” in a thread entirely disconnected with the previous debate. If I were in your shoes, I would have gone back and re-read the thread without emotional investment. I would then have seen where I had gone amiss and would gladly acknowledge it. Alternately, I would have come back and told you what I suggested above and be content to let it drop. But the reason you cannot and will not acknowledge your OBVIOUS errors is your pride. Admitting after all this time your elementary mistakes, in your mind, would undercut your credibility (not true), and that’s a price too great for you to pay. That’s why you have to maintain this fiction, and that’s why you insist on continuing to talk about it when at this point it’s a dead horse. You’re not telling the truth when you claim that you’ll admit error. You wouldn’t admit it if your life depended on it.
Now, what part of, “I’m not going to debate you,” don’t you understand? What part of, “This is off-topic,” don’t you understand? If English isn’t your mother tongue, just tell me which language to translate it in, and I’ll see what I can do.
Enough already. Just drop it.
LikeLike
April 1, 2021 at 5:04 pm
As this is a blog, a public forum, and putting ideas out for readers, best to state what one has to offer, never mind objections. Readers can decide for themselves from available information.
LikeLike
April 7, 2021 at 4:41 pm
“Disanalogous. You previously asked for examples of obvious errors that were pointed out to you, and I simply supplied them and said that others who were interested could verify for themselves whether my claim is true.”
But you DIDN’T supply them. All you did was link a page filled with arguments, as if I’m supposed to know which ones you’re talking about. By way of analogy, if you were to demand evidence for the claim that the God of the Bible is evil, and I merely gave you a link to the Bible itself, that wouldn’t be helpful at all, would it?
“I wasn’t asking Paul for a link, and he was clearly using it in place of argument.”
I didn’t say you were asking Paul for a link, I said you refused to follow links Paul provided for you. And I’m not saying you should necessarily follow his links, only that you are guilty of doing something similar to what Paul did.
“And if you had a modicum of integrity, you would have said the same thing. All you need to say is, “Well, Scalia, I obviously disagree with you, and I too am perfectly content to let others judge the matter. If you don’t want to debate, no skin off my nose.” But you can’t do that, Derek, which tells me loudly and clearly that you haven’t changed one bit and that it’s useless to debate with you.”
And yet if you read my discussion with Naz on the “Tempted” thread, you can see debating with me is not useless. In fact, Naz expressed appreciation for my discourse demeanor.
The common thread with all the acrimonious arguments I’ve seen (with me, Paul and Naz)…is you. You seem to deliberately antagonize by being insulting. So I suspect your accusations are examples of projecting. I don’t attack people unless I’m attacked first, and I don’t make claims I can’t support. So I think your accusations about me say more about you than they do me.
“Now, what part of, “I’m not going to debate you,” don’t you understand? What part of, “This is off-topic,” don’t you understand? If English isn’t your mother tongue, just tell me which language to translate it in, and I’ll see what I can do.”
Case in point. Nasty, insulting, mean-spirited. It doesn’t speak well of you.
“Enough already. Just drop it.”
Fine. How about we just wipe the slate clean? Forget all past rancor and address my arguments on the “Tempted” thread as if we’ve never argued prior to it.
LikeLike
April 7, 2021 at 9:43 pm
Derek writes:
As predicted…
If you recall from the other thread some time ago, I supplied the link for the benefit of readers, not your benefit. You’ve proven to me what kind of character you are, and nothing has changed from our first interaction to now. The reproduction of the link here was again not so much for you as it was (and is) for others who didn’t read the other thread where I added the link. You keep asking for examples, but that would turn into a non-ending merry-go-round like what’s going on here. As I said, I’m perfectly content to let readers decide who’s telling the truth. I am not at all interested in arguing with a guy who will not admit the simplest of errors, who will hijack threads, and who will not quit when asked to stop. From a post above, I wrote:
And here we go again. You affirmed my statement the instant you posted that. I provided the link, as you well know, wherein it occurred numerous times. You’re simply not telling the truth when you claim to be open to evidence and will readily admit it when you’re shown your errors. People can read the link and decide for themselves. That’s about all I have to say in the matter.
Note again, the link is for the benefit of others. Like I also said above, if I were you and I really felt that this was a point of contention, I would have gone back and re-read the thread with an open mind and would have immediately acknowledged whatever errors I’ve made. And I know that’s what I would have done because I’ve done it before when in youthful ignorance I let my zeal get ahead of my sense.
And contrary to your logic-challenged mind, it’s not at all the same with Paul’s situation. We weren’t arguing about the information in a previous exchange or what we said therein. He was simply unable to put two cogent thoughts together and instead wanted me to read a link defending OSAS when I already told him that I came from an OSAS church! I have no need to read their literature because I’m an expert on it. And since Paul was clearly using a link in place of argument (which is contrary to what Jason wants us to do — which I believe I also told Paul), I refused to go there. I really couldn’t care less whether or not you read the link. I’m simply telling you that’s what I would have done if it meant as much to me as it apparently means to you. I never asked Paul for a link or for examples in response to which a link would have been helpful. In no measure is your counter analogous.
Oh, please. Naz is like a fish out of water in those kinds of discussions. If you didn’t pick up on it, he was trying to evangelize you by playing the syrupy Christian card. He couldn’t rebut what you were saying because he lacks the argumentative skills and the background knowledge to challenge you. He uses this forum to peddle his beliefs in hopes of winning converts.
And if he had the skills, you wouldn’t budge an inch. Like I said, you wouldn’t admit error if your life depended on it because you’re too full of yourself to do so. In your eyes, your credibility rests entirely on there not being a chink in your armor. The admission of error would destroy your credibility (so you erroneously think), which is why you argue every point to death in the vain hope of proving yourself right after all.
The acrimony is over your refusal to quit beating a dead horse. Like I said above, if I were you, I would have simply said, “Well, Scalia, I definitely disagree with your characterization of our previous debate, and I too am perfectly content to let others judge the matter. If you don’t want to debate, that’s no skin off my nose either.” Why couldn’t you say that? You couldn’t because you’re obsessed with yourself. You’d rather highjack a thread and turn it into another “hundred-poster” than to simply let it drop. The acrimony is deserved.
After what you’ve done here? Not a snowball’s chance in Riyadh, Bub. I’m perfectly content to interact, but as this thread has shown, debating you is a waste of time.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 2:38 pm
“If you recall from the other thread some time ago, I supplied the link for the benefit of readers, not your benefit. You’ve proven to me what kind of character you are, and nothing has changed from our first interaction to now.”
I’m sorry you’re so thin-skinned about this, but that’s your issue, not mine. My character is just fine, thanks. As I noted above, you really should be more introspective about this, since it’s clear you’re projecting your own behavior onto me.
“You keep asking for examples, but that would turn into a non-ending merry-go-round like what’s going on here.”
Yeah, I just don’t buy that. If you’ll recall, I was the one who ended the previous merry-go-round. Meanwhile, you seem to thrive on non-ending arguments, as evidenced by your interminable arguments with Paul and Naz on the other thread. As I said, you’re projecting.
“who will not quit when asked to stop.”
Pot. Kettle. Black. FYI, this will be my last post on this issue, since is clear you don’t even want to wipe the slate clean. I don’t bear grudges the way you clearly do.
“And contrary to your logic-challenged mind, it’s not at all the same with Paul’s situation. We weren’t arguing about the information in a previous exchange or what we said therein.”
Hey, whatever lets you sleep at night.
“Oh, please. Naz is like a fish out of water in those kinds of discussions. If you didn’t pick up on it, he was trying to evangelize you by playing the syrupy Christian card.”
Of course he was! That’s what evangelicals do–it’s right there in the name of their denomination. But what does that have to do with anything? Naz and I carried on a civil discourse, and the point of my mentioning this is that you and I could do the same. It doesn’t mean we have to agree on the topics; it just means being civil rather than acrimonious.
“And if he had the skills, you wouldn’t budge an inch. Like I said, you wouldn’t admit error if your life depended on it because you’re too full of yourself to do so.”
Again, you’re projecting. Take a step back and read your own accusations against me and you’ll see how clear that is.
“In your eyes, your credibility rests entirely on there not being a chink in your armor.”
On the contrary. In my eyes my credibility rests on being able to provide evidence for my claims. If someone can prove my evidence is mistaken, I will accept that. But mere assertions are not evidence, and that is all I’ve ever been presented by you, Paul or Naz.
“The acrimony is over your refusal to quit beating a dead horse.”
Again: Pot. Kettle. Black.
“Like I said above, if I were you, I would have simply said, “Well, Scalia, I definitely disagree with your characterization of our previous debate, and I too am perfectly content to let others judge the matter. If you don’t want to debate, that’s no skin off my nose either.” Why couldn’t you say that?”
That was the essence of what I said here: “Fine. How about we just wipe the slate clean? Forget all past rancor and address my arguments on the “Tempted” thread as if we’ve never argued prior to it.”
“After what you’ve done here? Not a snowball’s chance in Riyadh, Bub. I’m perfectly content to interact, but as this thread has shown, debating you is a waste of time.”
I’m sorry you feel that way. I see that statement as being thin-skinned and, frankly, butt-hurt. But that’s fine, I’m happy to give you the last word by granting you your wish and making this my last post on this issue.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 9:07 pm
@Derek
Why, yes, I certainly will take the last word, but not for the reasons you think. To refresh your memory, I was speaking with Andrew (a fellow pro-lifer) and simply made the observation that pro-abortion arguments are very weak. You jumped right in and tried to debate me. And after I told you multiple times that I would not debate with you, you couldn’t let it rest. You tried to goad me into debating anyway. So, there’s no “projection” whatsoever. You are what you are, and so long as your megalomania persists, you’ll never open your eyes to see yourself as you really are.
After you challenged me, I replied in Post 19 thusly:
First, my remarks were directed at Andrew. Second, I told you that I have no interest in debating you on any topic due to it being a pointless exercise. You will argue ad infinitum and steadfastly ignore or deny obvious logical errors you make. I have better things to do with my time. If others choose to engage you, that’s no skin off my nose.
But you wouldn’t let it go! It was at that point that you could have said what I twice suggested: “I completely disagree with your characterization of the previous debate, and I too am content to let others decide. If you don’t want to debate, c’est la vie,” and that would have ended it! You would have had the last word with what would have been Post 20, and this crazy back-and-forth would have stopped. But true to form, you had to try every angle to goad me into a debate when you were told multiple times that the previous debate is off-topic! You couldn’t have cared less and barreled ahead anyway.
And you typically missed the point with Naz. You had a pleasant discussion because he knew that he was completely out of his league debating you, so he either had to drop it or try to win you with kisses. If you had pressed him like I did on OSAS, you would have seen his other side pronto.
Next, you accuse me of projecting when it comes to admitting error. On the “works” thread, I apologized to Naz without prompting because I had misread a word he used and formed an argument based on that misunderstanding. I can recall multiple times when I’ve admitted error on these boards alone, so don’t try putting me into your pot.
Finally, in reply to my question why you couldn’t accept my refusal to debate and state that you are equally content with letting others read the previous exchange to judge for themselves, you absurdly alleged that that’s what you were doing! “Forget my previous obstinacy and let’s try it again.” Not a chance, Bub. You’re responsible for 16 additional, unnecessary posts because of your wounded pride. Or, perhaps, you were hoping to bury the link because you don’t want anybody to see your irrationality on display. Well, don’t worry. Here it is again for people to judge for themselves:
Even if the universe is eternal, it still needs a cause
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 10:21 pm
Outside all intellectual double-speak, depending upon whose talking, abortion is the act of killing an innocent baby. Some call it murder, for a life is ended: an innocent life. Any argument outside, except to save the mother (then, the attempt should be to save both) or horrific medical problems (again, then the effort to be the best medical help), is just people trying to work their way around reality.
LikeLike