Doubting Didymus

If it's a fertilised egg, sure. Keep in mind that I don't actually agree that any of these are true, but by your logic they follow from your premises.

Yes, though I would make this case because humans are capable of thoughts, emotions, etc. Not because of magic in our genes.

First: I completely understand what you are saying with this chart. There is no need to simplify or repeat this idea to me.

Not in any way whatsoever.

Again and again and again you claim that a zygote has the same value as a fully grown human. Why, oh why won't you back this up? On what grounds do you say that a tree is more important that its zygote, but a man is not? Please, support this assertion. The assertion itself is not an argument.

Bree

Actually, I disagree with that statement. A 100 year old man has lived out his usefulness and is probably going to die very soon. A zygote has potential to become a human being (given that circumstances are right) and it is possible that when the zygote becomes a human being (i.e. out of the womb) they have greater potential and greater usefulness.

This has nothing to do with the pro-life discussion at hand - sorry!

MarcoPolo

Great. I understand what you're doing, you're just agreeing to my definitions for the sake of the argument.

I agree! But can you finish the 'etc.' part? What does 'etc' represent?

Understood.

Well could you explain why the chart is wrong?

Uh. Didn't you just grant me that for this part of the discussion? Are you now taking it back?

Because you said you would grant me that for the sake of the argument. Are you saying your argument fails if you grant me that?

I only say a tree is more important because you used the whole '$10,000 for felling a tree' argument. Technically they're the same. But I would say a 10,000 year old tree is probably a grand thing to look at. That would give it more valuable than a tiny acorn. (Reminds me of a Far Side strip where the people cut down this huge tree and while looking at the rings was commenting on all the catastrophes it survived...but I digress.)

Do you believe that an individual human life is more important than an individual tree life? If so, then it is just common sense; No argument needed.

MarcoPolo

Yeah. Well I'm sure you understood what I was saying.

If we all spent time making sure we covered every possible 'what if' we'd never get anywhere.

Some basic comprehension and logic is assumed.

winstonjen

I apologise for misinterpreting your post.

Doubting Didymus

Well the thing is that you now want to claim that, while the rights of the adult should be extended to the zygote, its only for humans. I want you to back that up. I will grant that human zygotes have the same value as adult humans ONLY if you grant that acorns are equally valuable as oak trees.

No, I'm saying that if I grant you that, it neccessarily follows that acorns have the same values as oaks.

Exactly! And I am saying that the exact same thing applies to humans. Your premises as they stand, do not allow you to make the distiction between the respective values of old and young trees, unless the same thing can apply to humans. Remember: the value of the adult is extended to the zygote. This MUST apply equally to trees and tree zygotes as it does to humans and human zygotes.

So you are seriously claiming that although you have 'shown' that zygotes are equal in value to adults, this only applies to humans because we're super dooper? Well I'm sorry, but you have to prove that. It is NOT common sense that the zygote = adult argument should only apply to humans. If an arguments structure is valid, it should apply equally to all arguments of the same structure. If the argument no longer makes sense when it is applied to an analogous situation, then you have an invalid argument, i'm afraid.

As I finish up, Please think on what this statement of yours actually entails for the HUMAN abortion argument.

Get it? An embryo is NOT as valuable as an adult. Not for trees, and not for humans.

In order for this distinction between human and tree abortion to make any sense, you must show how the zygote=>embryo=>sapling=>oak chain of events is any different from the zygote=>embryo=>foetus=>human. Saying that the termination of a zygote is less important in the case of trees because trees are less important makes no sense. I say again: If abortion is murder, tree abortion must be tree murder. THAT is common sense.

Doubting Didymus

By the way, I'm gone for two days. Dont go and declare triumph while I'm gone.

MarcoPolo

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Then we can't go on because I can't grant you that an acorn is as valuable as an oak tree. Since now you're changing what you initally agreed to, we're back at square one.

My distinctions never implied that. You're the one making that claim. I should be on you to prove that.

Why?

Why is that wrong?

Forget everything we've said up until now and just answer the following question.

Is the life of a human more valuable than the life of a plant? Yes or No. (No conditionals please... just answer the question.)

If you answer 'no,' then we can stop here because you're not doing anything but arguing just to read yourself arguing.

If you answer honestly with a 'yes' then you'll understand why your argument can't apply here.

If the human is always more valuable than the tree, then even if you grant me the zygote has the same rights as an adult, you can't just elevate the value of the acorn to make your argument fit.

Why is that not common sense? Are humans not the most valuable lifeform on the planet? If not, why not?

We're not talking math equations here. We're talking about different life forms with different values.

I keep saying all along that technically the argument is the same. But because the value is different between a human and tree, it's not the same, uh, hmm, ethical? moral? realistically!

You're implying that I think a 30 year old is more valuable than a zygote.

It means nothing close to what you think it is implying. There is a value difference which you can't seem to comprehend.

I think it's ludicrous to think an old man is more valuable than a tiny baby (or zygote/new human). I think it's just fine to think a 10,000 year old tree is more valuable than a simple acorn. Is that something you can't agree with? If not, why? Is a work of art more valuable than a blank canvas? You're a human. You can place a value on other things at will.

Again, I don't know why you can't see this. Technically yes, realistically no.

It makes complete sense if you can make the value distinction.

I AGREE with you technically but realistically we're the superior race and it doesn't work like that.

*had to edit to fix some code problems... it's freaking 1:10 AM! Gimmie a break!!!*

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: MarcoPolo ]</p>

MarcoPolo

I wouldn't do that! Thanks for letting me know though, I might have gotten cocky and thought I scared you off.

(I'll enjoy the break... I'm sure everyone else will too... maybe we should just take it to email since it seems we're the only ones talking here.)

long winded fool

You are a tough customer Doubting Didymus. It seems that this seed analogy is quite a sticking point for you. Since you are so adamant, I'll explore this analogy logically instead of jumping straight into my rational laws argument. The errors may be subtle but I believe they are definitely there. Maybe I can refute this analogy and (hopefully) remove it from the argument.

I stand by my assertion that an acorn is NOT a tree. An acorn is a species called quercus prinus. (or something similar) A developed quercus prinus is an oak tree; an undeveloped one is an acorn. A tree parallels to a developed human, an acorn to a human embryo in your analogy. Both adult and embryo are homo sapiens sapiens but only one is a developed human in the same sense that both the acorn and the tree are quercus prinus but only one is an oak tree. You are not killing a tree by destroying an acorn, and you are not killing a developed human by destroying an embryo. You ARE killing a quercus prinus when you destroy an acorn and you ARE killing a homo sapiens sapiens when you destroy an embryo. This, I think, is your argument paraphrased. Murder, you maintain, is the killing of a human being only and doesn't extend to all homo sapiens sapiens. While sound and perhaps even compelling, I think this analogy, on the contrary, may have shot you in the foot:

You've stated that an acorn is a tree embryo. Do you agree that a bird egg is also a bird embryo? A better parallel then would be to use a protected species of bird such as an eagle, (since humans are a federally protected species. More so even than eagles.) The golden eagle represents the developed human, the newly laid egg is the embryo. According to the United States Conservation Code, the penalty for destroying an adult eagle is exactly the same as the penalty for destroying the egg of an eagle. A fine of something like five to ten thousand dollars and a couple of years in jail. The government makes no distinction between an egg and the adult when dealing with "protected" species. An egg is not an eagle, but the egg IS an aquila chrysaetos. The destruction of the species aquila chrysaetos whether adult or undeveloped embryo is a federal crime that incurs a penalty regardless of whether the species was a golden eagle (developed adult) or an embryo (egg.) This means that the law against killing eagles extends automatically to all aquila chrysaetos, and not just golden eagles. The blobs of cells that make up undeveloped eagles are protected by the same law that protects adult eagles. And since humans are valued more than golden eagles, according to the laws of this country, the penalty for killing a human is much stiffer. Therefore the penalty for killing a human embryo ought to be equal to the penalty for killing a fully developed adult. This only follows. You can say you don't agree with these morals, but the laws are right there in black and white. If the analogy is true, then the argument must logically follow. If it is as wrong to destroy an egg as it is a bird, (and by the laws of this country it is,) then it is as wrong to destroy a human embryo as it is a developed adult human. This follows logically.

Unless you can refute my logic or show where my analogy is false, (and yours is not) this seems to be proof that abortion should not be legal and, in fact, should carry a penalty equal to that pertaining to the willful destruction of a human being.