Queen of Swords

I don't "believe in infanticide" because it is possible to give an infant or child away. It is not possible to do the same for a zygote, blastula, embryo or fetus, and I do not condone forcing women to undergo pregnancy.

MarcoPolo

If someone breaks into your house and shoots one of your loved ones, the person who made the gun is responsible. That is being 'technical.' If that gun was never made, the shooting wouldn't have taken place.

Realistically, it's not their fault. Do you see the difference between technically and realistically?

I don't know why I have to keep saying this over and over again. I AGREE that relationship is the same.

I agree that this is the technical application of my argument. But since, you've said yourself, humans are more valuable than trees, realistically it doesn't.

Right.

Because I've agreed with this. I agree. I agree. I agree! There, I've said it four times now hoping you're going to see I agree.

A tree zygote is technically the same as the tree itself just the same way a human zygote is technically the same as the human itself.

Do you see that I agree with you?

Where you seem to be having a problem is the value difference of each. A human infant is much more valuable than a tree sapling. An adult human is much more valuable than a full grown tree.

Maybe instead of you claiming I'm wrong about this, you could demonstrate WHY I'm wrong. All you keep saying is, 'That's not true.' Why not tell me WHY it's not true.

simian

OK, I got tired of relying on Longwindedfool's word for what federal law says on the value of eagles. So I did something, I tried looking for the actual legal information. I found <a href="http://midwest.fws.gov/eagle/protect/laws.html" target="_blank">this page</a>. Not only does the eagle egg have the same value as the adult eagle, an eagle nest has the same value as the adult eagle. As does a feather. Either the nest has the "potential" to develop into an eagle, or the egg protection is something other than "an embryo has the same value as a viable offspring".

Or perhaps next we will be assailed with the idea that I can not have my house demolished because eventually there could be a fetus in it...

Simian

long winded fool

Most pro-abortionists often (perhaps wisely) restrict their debates to morality and questions like "What gives you the right?" or "Humanity is a gradual development until X amount of weeks when the fetus is a human being." While anti-abortionists can and do argue within these parameters, they can never logically refute abortion since morality is subjective to most people and opinions certainly are. This is somewhat reminiscent of theists arguing for the existence of God solely by what is stated in the bible. Atheists can show contradictions, but they certainly can't prove that there is no God using only the bible because the bible is adamant that there is. (Most) atheists use laws and logical deduction outside of the bible to come to their conclusions. (Many) theists use subjective morality and personal desire and ignore anything that doesn't mesh with scripture. Since my argument is that abortion is unlawful and therefore should be illegal, my position must be in discussing the laws and not morality. Laws are objective and can be sorted logically and value can be objectively ascertained. Demanding I give subjective opinions is the equivalent of a theist demanding an Atheist argue according to the bible. It can be done and God can even be shown to do seemingly contradictory things, but it can never refute His existence, because the Bible is ABOUT God. Similarly, we can debate whose morality warrants judgment and persecution until we're blue in the face, but opinions are still subjective. Abortion is still a woman's personal right. When actual laws are brought into the picture, we have something objective to go on. Though they aren't perfect, they are our only tools to determining whether abortion is objectively right or wrong and thus should be legal or illegal. Personal morality simply allows us to believe whatever we would like to believe.

Doubting Didymus, I agree, LordSnooty and Puck did an excellent job refuting the eagle=egg argument. But do you see that the eagle and egg are comparable to humans in the same way as the acorn and the oak tree? This is the same analogy, just with an example of a non-human embryo being legally equivalent to a non-human adult, instead of one that isn't. I agree with Marco's point that humans, though comparable to oak trees, have absolutely different value for different reasons. If humans are directly analogous to the life cycle of oak trees, then they are to the life cycle of eagles, and we have a contradiction. If eagles are worth more than trees, and humans are worth more than eagles, wouldn't it be only logical that eagles must be a better analogy, having value closer to that of humans? This IS comparing apples and oranges, because the value of humans resides solely in their humanity, whereas animal and plant species hold either practical value, or sentimental value based on rarity. Destroying an acorn is technically not felling a tree. Destroying an egg technically is not killing a developed golden eagle. Destroying an embryo is not technically killing a developed human. The species of oak tree doesn't hold enough value to warrant the protection of acorns (which ARE of the species of oak tree.) The golden eagle species DOES hold enough value for the protection of its eggs, strictly because of its rarity. To say that the human species does not hold enough value to protect its embryos by comparing human life to tree life assumes that human value is judged by the same or similar standards as plant value, specifically tree value, and different standards than animal value, which is clearly a false parallel. Neither practical use nor rarity gives value to humans.

Lordsnooty, Puck, in each case you must look at the species' value and why it has objective legal value in our society, not subjective value to your personal taste. I have been using strictly "the laws" to determine value for the sake of argument. If you want me to put forth my personal, subjective opinion just so you can tell me that it's my opinion and shouldn't reflect on your rights, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. My opinion is not relevant. As long as this argument is based on personal opinions, the pro-abortionists have already won. My opinion that humanity starts as conception, then, would be just as valid as yours of humanity starting after 24 weeks or 48 or whatever, and I would have no grounds to refute you or enforce my opinions over yours. Your opinion would be your freedom and would be as valid as any other, just as would an opinion that humanity is restricted to a certain level of I.Q., or a certain race, or a certain religious belief. These are all equally valid if morality is, and should be, subjective. I CAN understand your arguments, and I see that they are false. You have your opinions but you don't know what actually gives humans value, and you don't know when that value takes affect, yet you condone the killing of undeveloped humans. You also logically condone contradictory laws, since you believe that some humans have more rights than others. Our opinions don't matter, being just that: Opinions. The laws matter. And the laws should be clear. Since they aren't, (indeed they are self-contradicting,) they NEED to be made clear. If they can't logically be made clear the way they are, they need to be changed. If in fact you can follow this, but you don't agree with it and don't tell me why, then you either don't know why, which IS being dishonest with yourself, or you simply don't wish to tell me why and our discussion is pointless.


(Simian, your refutation of an analogy already shown to be false is still in obvious error. So as not to appear unnecessarily long-winded, just reread your link closely and if you still don't understand why, I'll explain in detail...)

Doubting Didymus

Yes. Now all you have to do is demonstrate what difference exists 'realistically'. So far all you have said is that humans are more valuable, which I agree with, but that does not change the fact that an acorn is an oak tree, which you have agreed to.

So what IS this difference you keep alluding to?

... but only technically the same. So is an acorn an oak tree or isn't it?

Can't you see that those two logical formulae already take the different value into account? So what is the difference in reality?

Are you saying you agree?


Correct. So what? I've agreed with you about this from day one. Nonetheless, your argument still maintains that an acorn desroyed is an oak tree felled, and an apple in the fire is destroying an orchard.

No, it IS true. Humans are more valuable than trees. Thats why, under your argument, acorn destruction is not murder in the first, it is forestry. What I am saying is that, EVEN IF trees are less valuable, it still follows that they are EQUAL in value to their seeds. This makes eating fruit forestry.

Doubting Didymus

Longwinded:

I have only one question for you. You say that it is neither our practical value nor our rarity that gives us value, (I agree). But, what is it? Please pin down what you think makes a human a human and gives us value, then we can continue with your argument, which seems in essence to be basically that we have a different kind of value.

Define it, and we will continue.

MarcoPolo

I'm at a loss for words as to how to describe the value difference. It seems like common sense to me but obviously I'm not doing a good job of expressing it.

You just showed me that you understand I'm saying it's technically the same then ask me again if they are the same.

I'm beginning to think you're just playing games with me now.

Let me spell it out for you one more time just in case you're not.

Technically speaking, an acorn is the same as a tree.

Realistically speaking, the value of an acorn is not the same as the value of a tree, as determined by HUMANS. (If trees could assess value, then the tree would say they are of the same value, but hopefully you understand that trees can't place value on something.)

And that's what I've said from day one. But when you apply value to the equation, since humans determine value, it's realistically not the same.

Right. I hope this sheds some light on it.

Humans determine the value of things. We're the only species on the planet that does. We are in the position to tear down forests to make roads because we're the superior species. This is OUR planet. We make the rules.

You've agreed that humans are more valuable than trees.

What makes us more valuable?

MarcoPolo

I don't understand your need for someone to explain something you agree with? If you agree with it, can't you just continue the discussion?

Doubting Didymus

Important concerns interfere with my desire to continue this discussion. It is my intention to bow out gracefully at this point. Marco, longwinded, you are both proficient debaters and I hope to see you in future discussions.

MarcoPolo

Then consider it a mutual bow out. (I was hoping we could come to some type of ending!) Looking forward to more in the future.

Good luck with whatever concern you're having to focus on!!!