So, what are your thoughts on abortion?

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

Then reread both the posts. Traits do not evolve out of need, it is antithetical to central dogma of molecular biology and is semblant of intelligent design arguments.

I never said that traits evolve out of need..........

Fair enough, but you have said they evolve because of the benefits provided by the evolution. There is no foresight in evolution so any allusion to it is inappropriate in an argument from an evolutionary perspective and my explanation above still applies.

[gibson]

I never said that traits evolve out of need..........

Fair enough, but you have said they evolve because of the benefits provided by the evolution. There is no foresight in evolution so any allusion to it is inappropriate in an argument from an evolutionary perspective.

A mutation doesnt happen because its going to provide a benefit, rather, said mutation stays around because of the benefit it provides. Im sorry if my post implied otherwise. The purpose of my post was to highlight the point that the primary purpose of sex is to reproduce, not to talk about random mutations.

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

I saw something very intriguing while cruising threw newest first on imgur today. It was a screenshot of some guy''s hypothetical test/argument on abortion.

It went roughly as follows:

I''m holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding an embyro in the other. I am going to drop one. You have to choose which one I drop.

Take some time to choose.

If you truly believe an embryo is the same as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide. If they were both the same, it would make sense to flip a coin and choose' that''s how hard it would be.

I''m going to take a guess and say you saved the baby. This is probably because you are aware there is a difference.


Even if the argument isn''t perfect I thought it was intriguing and was worth sharing.

I''m pro-choice but I still see the holes in this argument. You''re asking them to decide between a life and a potential life' the choice should be easy regardless of one''s position on the nature of a fetus. It''s a false-equivalency.

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

Fair enough, but you have said they evolve because of the benefits provided by the evolution. There is no foresight in evolution so any allusion to it is inappropriate in an argument from an evolutionary perspective.

A mutation doesnt happen because its going to provide a benefit, rather, said mutation stays around because of the benefit it provides. Im sorry if my post implied otherwise. The purpose of my post was to highlight the point that the primary purpose of sex is to reproduce, not to talk about random mutations.

A mutation doesnt stick around because it provides a benefit. It sticks around if it doesnt kill you or fuck you over so badly that you never get to reproduce. The acquisition of traits isnt an optimization phenomenon' the selection, however, is.

[farran34]

Ethical systems are based on logic..... Anytime you use logic to determine whether something is objectively right or wrong you are doing ethics. You may not be able to grasp this, but I cannot help you with that.

(referring to quote below, cannot write underneath it some reason.) Please show me where someone has stated this in a somewhat recent post.

Ok.. And I cant help you if you cant grasp the difference I mean between ethical and logic in a more literal sense

And no, I wont, becaus youre the one who is making faulty statements about the general belief in the thread. Go read it yourself.

Any statement on what is right or wrong is involves philosophy. If you state that objective truth is real, you are making a philosophical statement. This section of philosophy is ethics, which you somehow seem to deny. Perhaps you should take a class in ethics, it might help you. until then I am done debating with you as you do not seem to understand even the basics of ethics, and we will keep arguing on this point.

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

Ok.. And I cant help you if you cant grasp the difference I mean between ethical and logic in a more literal sense

And no, I wont, becaus youre the one who is making faulty statements about the general belief in the thread. Go read it yourself.

Any statement on what is right or wrong is involves philosophy. If you state that objective truth is real, you are making a philosophical statement. This section of philosophy is ethics, which you somehow seem to deny. Perhaps you should take a class in ethics, it might help you. until then I am done debating with you as you do not seem to understand even the basics of ethics, and we will keep arguing on this point.

Does modern philosophy serve any purpose other than ending an argument on the basis of "Im far too intelligent and educated to even speak to someone as stupid as you?"

[arriah]

?Any statement on what is right or wrong is involves philosophy. If you state that objective truth is real, you are making a philosophical statement. This section of philosophy is ethics, which you somehow seem to deny. Perhaps you should take a class in ethics, it might help you. until then I am done debating with you as you do not seem to understand even the basics of ethics, and we will keep arguing on this point.

Does modern philosophy serve any purpose other than ending an argument on the basis of "Im far too intelligent and educated to even speak to someone as stupid as you?"

Lol. For real. Asker was looking for logical arguments to debate. Gets mad at me for making logical arguments. Claims everything is philosophy therefore theres no logic. WTF

[farran34]

Any statement on what is right or wrong is involves philosophy. If you state that objective truth is real, you are making a philosophical statement. This section of philosophy is ethics, which you somehow seem to deny. Perhaps you should take a class in ethics, it might help you. until then I am done debating with you as you do not seem to understand even the basics of ethics, and we will keep arguing on this point.

Does modern philosophy serve any purpose other than ending an argument on the basis of "Im far too intelligent and educated to even speak to someone as stupid as you?"

I am not stating I am smarter than him or that he is too stupid, I am simply stating that if he has no knowledge in philosophy and then tries to deny basic claims in philosophy, debating him in it is pointless. To make a claim that "objective morals needs to be based off of ethics that doesnt make sense" or that "wrong being going against the general best interest of the species" is not an ethical statement just makes it impossible to debate properly.

[farran34]

Does modern philosophy serve any purpose other than ending an argument on the basis of "Im far too intelligent and educated to even speak to someone as stupid as you?"

Lol. For real. Asker was looking for logical arguments to debate. Gets mad at me for making logical arguments. Claims everything is philosophy therefore theres no logic. WTF

Never got mad at you for making logical arguments, I merely was debating you on them and then you state I am just stating opinion rather than actually addressing it.

Did not claim everything is philosophy, just claimed that we are arguing over an ethical view, which you denied. If you read what I said 100 times, ethical systems are based off of logic, I am not denying logic.

This is why I dont want to debate you lol...

[arriah]

Lol. For real. Asker was looking for logical arguments to debate. Gets mad at me for making logical arguments. Claims everything is philosophy therefore theres no logic. WTF

Never got mad at you for making logical arguments, I merely was debating you on them and then you state I am just stating opinion rather than actually addressing it.

Did not claim everything is philosophy, just claimed that we are arguing over an ethical view, which you denied. If you read what I said 100 times, ethical systems are based off of logic, I am not denying logic.

This is why I dont want to debate you lol...

You didnt seem to get my definition of objective morality. Thats why I asked to clear it up. I told you what my definition for it in the discussion so far had been, and you just kept telling me I was wrong. Logic is not the same thing as ethics, and if you want to get all technlcal about who knows more I will win in the logic category as a computer scientist/software engineer I work with the most literal form of logic and logic flow.

So when I say logic and you say basically that you just randomly decided that at the exact moment of conception a zygote formed is human and therefore has the right to not be killed, but it can impede other peoples rights bc oh, I just decided that women have no rights over their body without logic and therefore plan b is murder bc fuck logic, yeah, Im gonna say youre being subjective.

[Metis]

Traits are evolved by chance and are conserved if they confer an advantage.

Its easy to fall into the trap of teleological thinking where evolution is concerned. One of the hardest things to get new biology students to understand is that evolution by natural selection doesnt occur with a purpose in mind. I think its especially difficult to get farm and ranch kids to understand this as they have grown up seeing evolution by artificial selection, which does occur with a purpose in mind.

Sexual reproduction evolved long before the neurology necessary to make the sexual act pleasurable evolved. Conjugation in bacteria is a chemical response and in simpler forms of animal life it is a hormonal response' that is, two receptive organisms will always have sex when they meet, without thinking, due to a chemical response.

More complex animals have either evolved the ability to control their urges somewhat or reproduction has become seasonal. Either way it ensures that the organisms are spending sufficient time surviving and building up the energy reserves necessary to produce viable offspring, rather than just trying to reproduce all the time.

In organisms that can control their urges somewhat, a sort of evolutionary governing mechanism exists. Those members of the population that find sexual intercourse more pleasurable tend to have sex more often and produce more offspring, thereby transferring their horny genes to the next generation. However, those that find sex too pleasurable tend to ignore things necessary to survival like eating, drinking, and fleeing from predators and thus transfer less of their genes to the next generation.

In human society, this natural governing mechanism breaks down and must be replaced by an artificial governing mechanism. Males that are unable to control their sexual urges are called sexual predators and are artificially removed from the reproductive population by imprisonment (or, rarely, castration). However, this doesnt completely remove the overly-horny genes because the some males that cant control their urges also posses traits that make them very attractive to females and thus they can find many willing sexual partners. Females that cant control their sexual urges also are rarely removed from the population by imprisonment and tend to have more offspring (especially if the urge is so great as to preclude taking the time to use birth control). Therefore, the genes responsible remain present in the population.

[farran34]

Never got mad at you for making logical arguments, I merely was debating you on them and then you state I am just stating opinion rather than actually addressing it.

Did not claim everything is philosophy, just claimed that we are arguing over an ethical view, which you denied. If you read what I said 100 times, ethical systems are based off of logic, I am not denying logic.

This is why I dont want to debate you lol...

You didnt seem to get my definition of objective morality. Thats why I asked to clear it up. I told you what my definition for it in the discussion so far had been, and you just kept telling me I was wrong. Logic is not the same thing as ethics, and if you want to get all technlcal about who knows more I will win in the logic category as a computer scientist/software engineer I work with the most literal form of logic and logic flow.

So when I say logic and you say basically that you just randomly decided that at the exact moment of conception a zygote formed is human and therefore has the right to not be killed, but it can impede other peoples rights bc oh, I just decided that women have no rights over their body without logic and therefore plan b is murder bc fuck logic, yeah, Im gonna say youre being subjective.

Logic is not the same thing as ethics yes, but ethics uses logic. You cannot logically arrive at any ethical statement without using philosophy is what I am stating, not that one should not use logic or "fuck logic". Tell me your logic for determining when an individual turns human? I have stated there is not a logical way to determine this, and that is one my reasons for saying the moment of conception the being becomes a human.

Do two things for me, define only using logic (as you suggest can be done) when an individual turns human and gains the right to life, and determine only using logic why "wrong being going against the general best interest of the species" is true only with logic and without using philosophy.

[Metis]

Im holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding an embyro in the other. I am going to drop one. You have to choose which one I drop.

Youre asking them to decide between a life and a potential life... Its a false-equivalency.

I once had a sort-of friend who was an ultra-feminist, one of those females that pretty much thought of all males as "the enemy." Once, I asked her why she was always so antsy being alone with me. She said "All males are potential rapists." I said, "Well, that doesnt say anything, all females are potential murders too." There is a difference between the potential of something and its actuality. For instance, most are going to act very differently if a meteorologist say that a storm has the potential for producing a tornado than if he says there is a tornado on the ground.

That said, both an human embryo and a human baby are living organisms, they are just in different developmental stages with different viabilities.

[arriah]

Youre asking them to decide between a life and a potential life... Its a false-equivalency.

I once had a sort-of friend who was an?ultra-feminist, one of those females that?pretty much?thought of all males as "the enemy." Once I asked her why she was always so antsy being alone with?me. She?said "All males are potential rapists." I said, "Well, that doesnt say anything,?all females are potential murders too." There is a difference between the potential of something and its actuality. For instance,?most are?going to act very differently if a meteorologist say that a storm has the potential for producing a tornado than if he says there is a tornado on the ground.

Yeah I never got why anyone thought much of that either way. Ive heard men cry about it too. Its like, no ones saying youre a rapist, dude... Calm down.

[gibson]

A mutation doesnt happen because its going to provide a benefit, rather, said mutation stays around because of the benefit it provides. ?Im sorry if my post implied otherwise. The purpose of my post was to highlight the point that the primary purpose of sex is to reproduce, not to talk about random mutations.?

A mutation doesnt stick around because it provides a benefit. It sticks around if it doesnt kill you or fuck you over so badly that you never get to reproduce. The acquisition of traits isnt an optimization phenomenon' the selection, however, is.

Do I literally have to spell out every little detail, or can you make a few small logical jumps? If I I was attempting to get a publication from my posts, the detail would be woefully short. Believe it or not, I dont believe that the mutations decide they are beneficial and thus to stay. But I guess since you seem to assume the absolute worst from my posts Ill spell it out for you. I said the mutations stays around because its beneficial. How this happens is that an organism with a beneficial mutation has a higher chance to survive than an organism without said beneficial mutation. This mutation is then spread to the organism off spring while the one without the mutation ends up possibly dying off. The same thing happens with negative mutations, only the organism with the negative mutation dies off. I feel like you have an understanding of biology so I trust I wont have to continue to expound on details that any 10th grader at a normal highschool could tell you.

[arriah]

I saw something very intriguing while cruising threw newest first on imgur today. It was a screenshot of some guys hypothetical test/argument on abortion.

It went roughly as follows:

Im holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding an embyro in the other. I am going to drop one. You have to choose which one I drop.

Take some time to choose.?

If you truly believe an embryo is the same as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide. If they were both the same, it would make sense to flip a coin and choose' thats how hard it would be.

Im going to take a guess and say you saved the baby. This is probably because you are aware there is a difference.


Even if the argument isnt perfect I thought it was intriguing and was worth sharing.

Im pro-choice but I still see the holes in this argument. Youre asking them to decide between a life and a potential life' the choice should be easy regardless of ones position on the nature of a fetus. Its a false-equivalency.

How is it a false equivalency on our part hen THEY are the ones who dramatically cry out abortion is MURDER!!!!

[Metis]

Logic is not the same thing as ethics yes, but ethics uses logic.

Correct. The logic should be non-arguable, its ether valid or its not and this can be proven. What is arguable is whether the ethical premises are true. For instance:

It is wrong to end an innocent life.
Fetuses produced by rape are, themselves, innocent.
Therefore, it is wrong to abort a fetus produced by rape.

Its hard to say that the above argument doesnt contain both true premises and valid logic. However, it may not present the entire picture either.

[arriah]

Logic is not the same thing as ethics yes, but ethics uses logic.

Correct. The logic should be non-arguable, its ether valid or its not and this can be proven. What is arguable is whether the ethical premises are true. For instance:

It is wrong to end an innocent life.
Fetuses produced by rape are, themselves, innocent.
Therefore, it is wrong to abort a fetus produced by rape.

Its hard to say that the above argument doesnt contain both true premises and valid logic. However, it may not present the entire picture either.

Lol thanks for answering that I didnt even see that reply

[arriah]

You didnt seem to get my definition of objective morality. Thats why I asked to clear it up. I told you what my definition for it in the discussion so far had been, and you just kept telling me I was wrong. Logic is not the same thing as ethics, and if you want to get all technlcal about who knows more I will win in the logic category as a computer scientist/software engineer I work with the most literal form of logic and logic flow.

So when I say logic and you say basically that you just randomly decided that at the exact moment of conception a zygote formed is human and therefore has the right to not be killed, but it can impede other peoples rights bc oh, I just decided that women have no rights over their body without logic and therefore plan b is murder bc fuck logic, yeah, Im gonna say youre being subjective.

Logic is not the same thing as ethics yes, but ethics uses logic. You cannot logically arrive at any ethical statement without using philosophy is what I am stating, not that one should not use logic or "fuck logic". Tell me your logic for determining when an individual turns human? I have stated there is not a logical way to determine this, and that is one my reasons for saying the moment of conception the being becomes a human.?

Do two things for me, define only using logic (as you suggest can be done) when an individual turns human and gains the right to life, and determine only using logic why "wrong being going against the general best interest of the species" is true only with logic and without using philosophy.

My logic was about how it affects society since I understood that that question can not be answered, it become irrelevant and the next factor is considered.

[farran34]

Logic is not the same thing as ethics yes, but ethics uses logic.

Correct. The logic should be non-arguable, its ether valid or its not and this can be proven. What is arguable is whether the ethical premises are true. For instance:

It is wrong to end an innocent life.
Fetuses produced by rape are, themselves, innocent.
Therefore, it is wrong to abort a fetus produced by rape.

Its hard to say that the above argument doesnt contain both true premises and valid logic. However, it may not present the entire picture either.

This is a good point. I have been trying to get this point across. What I am trying to show arriah is that ethics uses logic, but ethical systems are important to define and apply logic.

It makes a big difference if one is arguing from deontology compared to consequentialism because of what premises we accept or reject. I will give a quick example:

A basic overview of classic utilitarianism:

1. Whatever creates more pleasure than pain is moral iff (if and only if) because it creatures more pleasure
2. Whatever creates more pain than pleasure is immoral iff because it creates more pain
3. Thus, whatever is moral creates more pleasure and whatever creates more pain is immoral.

If one were to argue someone that murder is wrong by stating:
1. Innocent humans have the right to life
2. Killing an innocent human takes away their right to life
3. It is wrong to kill to take away someones right to life
Thus killing an innocent human is wrong

A utilitarian would reject this argument by rejecting all of the premises (#2 is a bit debatable, as you could state they are rejecting it merely on the basis that there is no right to life to take away) because it does not correspond with their system of utilitarianism. Someone who has a different ethical system perhaps would accept the argument, because innocent humans having the right to life could be in the system.

This shows we cannot really do away with ethical systems, as in order to use logic for applied ethics we must have some basis for arguing for and against premises, which nominal ethical systems.

(note I wrote this somewhat fast and did not get a chance to proof read and make sure I was using 100% sound logic in my examples)

[arriah]

Correct. The logic should be non-arguable, its ether valid or its not and this can be proven. What is arguable is whether the ethical premises are true. For instance:

It is wrong to end an innocent life.
Fetuses produced by rape are, themselves, innocent.
Therefore, it is wrong to abort a fetus produced by rape.

Its hard to say that the above argument doesnt contain both true premises and valid logic. However, it may not present the entire picture either.

This is a good point. I have been trying to get this point across. What I am trying to show arriah is that ethics uses logic, but ethical systems are important to define and apply logic.

It makes a big difference if one is arguing from deontology compared to consequentialism because of what premises we accept or reject. I will give a quick example:

A basic overview of classic utilitarianism:

1. Whatever creates more pleasure than pain is moral iff (if and only if) because it creatures more pleasure
2. Whatever creates more pain than pleasure is immoral iff because it creates more pain?
3. Thus, whatever is moral creates more pleasure and whatever creates more pain is immoral.

If one were to argue someone that murder is wrong by stating:
1. Innocent humans have the right to life
2. Killing an innocent human takes away their right to life
3. It is wrong to kill to take away someones right to life
Thus killing an innocent human is wrong

A utilitarian would reject this argument by rejecting all of the premises (#2 is a bit debatable, as you could state they are rejecting it merely on the basis that there is no right to life to take away) because it does not correspond with their system of utilitarianism. Someone who has a different ethical system perhaps would accept the argument, because innocent humans having the right to life could be in the system.

This shows we cannot really do away with ethical systems, as in order to use logic for applied ethics we must have some basis for arguing for and against premises, which nominal ethical systems.

(note I wrote this somewhat fast and did not get a chance to proof read and make sure I was using 100% sound logic in my examples)

I see his answer as conveying my point, but maybe Im wrong, or maybe its both.
What Im debating is wether your premises are based off of sound logic and follow a logical flow, which they dont.

[arriah]

This is a good point. I have been trying to get this point across. What I am trying to show arriah is that ethics uses logic, but ethical systems are important to define and apply logic.

It makes a big difference if one is arguing from deontology compared to consequentialism because of what premises we accept or reject. I will give a quick example:

A basic overview of classic utilitarianism:

1. Whatever creates more pleasure than pain is moral iff (if and only if) because it creatures more pleasure
2. Whatever creates more pain than pleasure is immoral iff because it creates more pain?
3. Thus, whatever is moral creates more pleasure and whatever creates more pain is immoral.

If one were to argue someone that murder is wrong by stating:
1. Innocent humans have the right to life
2. Killing an innocent human takes away their right to life
3. It is wrong to kill to take away someones right to life
Thus killing an innocent human is wrong

A utilitarian would reject this argument by rejecting all of the premises (#2 is a bit debatable, as you could state they are rejecting it merely on the basis that there is no right to life to take away) because it does not correspond with their system of utilitarianism. Someone who has a different ethical system perhaps would accept the argument, because innocent humans having the right to life could be in the system.

This shows we cannot really do away with ethical systems, as in order to use logic for applied ethics we must have some basis for arguing for and against premises, which nominal ethical systems.

(note I wrote this somewhat fast and did not get a chance to proof read and make sure I was using 100% sound logic in my examples)

I see his answer as conveying my point, but maybe Im wrong, or maybe its both.
What Im debating is wether your premises are based off of sound logic and follow a logical flow, which they dont.

Ok Im quoting myself because I have a feeling you wont get my point, as it is kind of unclear. I started by having you define things to your "ethics" and started asking questions that flowed logically from your answers. Your arguments became more subjective and broke your own logical flow, and THATS what Im debating there. My argument was from the stance that we cant define some of these things so we must move on to the relevant thing we CAN answer, which is how it affects the rest of society. Since abortion being illegal clearly has a bad impact on society for a myriad of reasons, logically it should be legal.
There was also a break in flow on your subjective view that abortion is not taking responsibility. Logic dictates that since even using contraception perfectly there is a fail rate, and abstinence is out of the question, that having an abortion (because you would not have a safe pregnancy for the baby, or because you would not be able to care for it, or it might get stuck in abusive system--WHATEVER reason) is the next step of responsibility.

[farran34]

I see his answer as conveying my point, but maybe Im wrong, or maybe its both.
What Im debating is wether your premises are based off of sound logic and follow a logical flow, which they dont.

How is this not sound logic:



premise 1: innocent humans have a right to life

premise 2: The best argument we have for determining when one is a human is through it being biologically human

premise 3: Any argument attempting to determine when a being becomes a human except from genetically being a human is flawed

premise 4: A fetus is biologically a human

Thus an innocent fetus has a right to life



You keep arguing me saying, " well then this sucks for women" or "you just expect people to not have sex". How is this arguing logically and not from emotions? Unless I am making some error in logic (I believe my premises follow logically to the conclusion, but I have not looked too hard for the sake of time) the conclusion should be true. I assume you will reject premise 2 and 3, but you need to show provide an argument or show an error in logic for these premises, not just arbitrarily state they are objectively wrong.

[farran34]

note, this was not responding to your most recent comment

[arriah]

I realize that Im not explaining things very well right now. Juggling a lot of things in my bad memory so thanks for breaking it down.

How is this not sound logic:



premise 1: innocent humans have a right to life

This one you get for free, as you start with your premise.
[quote author="@farran34"]premise 2: The best argument we have for determining when one is a human is through it being biologically human

premise 3: Any argument attempting to determine when a being becomes a human except from genetically being a human is flawed[/quote]

This is where we started to disagree. That as the best argument is subjective. I pointed out that by your own words stem cells would also be humans. At this point you referred to 3. However, the logic flow has been corrupted as a stem cells could still technically be human at this point. This leads to 4

premise 4: A fetus is biologically a human

Thus an innocent fetus has a right to life

Here are more problems. You never address the fact that stem cells are still potential humans and innocent. (EDIT: you can ignore the stem cell stuff, as it more for future and its not all that relevant anyway. The rest of the post still stands)

You also make the claim that fetuses are innocent, which is not true in the case of a woman who wants an abortion, who is being forced to give up her body and nutrients, health, time, etc to the fetus, who does not have her consent. This means that the fetus is infringing the womans right, thus making it no longer innocent.

You then proceeded to say that well, uh, the woman doesnt have rights because she have them up by having sex! Which further corrupts the already destroyed logic flow and taints logical flows on consent. You then proceed to say that the most affective forms of birth control are murder based off of your already flawed logic. This totally condemns the woman, unless she gets lucky every time.

You keep arguing me saying, " well then this sucks for women" or "you just expect people to not have sex". How is this arguing logically and not from emotions?

I wasnt arguing with these lines, I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your arguments were. It was the logic that followed it that was the real "debate" part.