You asked "How could you speak out against any number of killings in which the perpetrator's personal definition of human being didn't happen to include his victims?"
This is my reply: I used this personal definition in terms of the point before conception. And the examples of the brain-dead body and murderer were used to stress the kaleidascope of meanings "human being" can have to us. In this scenario you present, you use two separate bodies: victims and a killer. Is not the perpetrator acting outside of his body? The act of abortion occurs in women's bodies; these woman are not harming outside beings.
We can agree that after conception and the separation of the fetus from the mother that it is some "human being". The great debate is whether or not we consider the fetus in a woman's womb a "human being."
I'm curious what you think about abortion when rape or incest has been involved. With many Pro-Life groups grudgingly agreeing that abortion may be allowed in those circumstances, and with Scott disagreeing-- his stance being that women should not have an abortion "to make themselves feel better" -- what's your take of abortion in these tragic cases?
What do you make of a human being? Do you think it is only genetic, as Scott does, or is being human something more?
Selina wrote: "As he [Scott] said he could sympathize for the woman, he said a woman should not have to "commit homicide" to "make herself feel better."
Selina has misquoted me. In response to the rape question, here is the jist of what I said: "How should a civil society treat innocent human beings that remind us of a painful event? (pause) Is it okay to kill them if it will make us feel better? If the unborn are human, hardship does not justify homicide."
As Jivin correctly points out, I made the case both scientifically and philosophically that the unborn are human. I also made it clear I would concede the debate if Nadine could demonstrate, using good scientific reasoning, that the unborn were not human.
Nadine never took the challenge, but instead simply kept reasserting (without a shred of evidence) that the unborn were "potential" humans, not actual ones.
Well, if the unborn are only potential humans, what are they actually? A potnential X must be an actual Y. So, again, what are these alleged 'potential' humans? Fish? Dogs? Rats? Here's the problem: Abortion choicers must explain how two human parents can create offspring that is not human but later becomes human. Inventing a story just won't do. The explanation must be persuasive and have scientific evidence to back it up. During the debate, no such explanation came from the abortion-choice side.
"Is it okay to kill them if it will make us feel better? If the unborn are human, hardship does not justify homicide."
Will an abortion truly make women feel better after being a victim to another person's abuse? Never. It just gives women back what is left of their authority to their bodies. Is it ok to force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy because of someone else's belief that "the unborn are human" and thus, because they are labeled as "human", are valuable? How then shall we justify miscarriages--should women be tried for manslaughter if their body unintentionally rejects the fetus? Since this "innocent human being" has thus far been regarded with as much worth as a a conceived being?
Scott: "I made the case both scientifically and philosophically that the unborn are human. I also made it clear I would concede the debate if Nadine could demonstrate, using good scientific reasoning, that the unborn were not human."
But how can she give "scientific reasoning" to the concept of "human"? According to the Princeton dictionary a human is "any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage". Does a zygote display any of these attributes?
Scott says: "Abortion choicers must explain how two human parents can create offspring that is not human but later becomes human."
I enjoyed your debate because I can see you have a very nifty arguing technique, where you put your opponent in a position where they have to defend your argument. I see this is the case too. Well, living organisms change. An egg is not a chicken. A tadpole is not a frog. A girl is not a woman. A fetus is not a human in any sense of the above definition, but as with the previous cases, matures to become one.
Also, Scott -- a particular scenario wasn't quite clear to me. You said in the case of woman being pregnant and having a potentially fatal pregnancy, you would rather save one life than lose two. Although it may be rare, what do you make of the situation where only the mother or the fetus may survive the pregnancy? Whose life would you chose?
Selina said: But how can she give "scientific reasoning" to the concept of "human"? According to the Princeton dictionary a human is "any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage". Does a zygote display any of these attributes?
Our one-year old son can't yet walk (heck, he can barely crawl). I can count the number of words he knows on one hand. And no one would seriously try to make the case that he possesses "superior intelligence".
Is he a human?
Are all persons with low IQs human insofar as they do not possess so-called "superior intelligence"?
How about people who stutter? When I was a kid, I had a terrible stuttering problem.
Was humanity conferred on me only when my speech became "articulate" after three years of speech therapy?
What about individuals who suffer severe paralysis such that they are unable to walk? Since they cannot be characterized by "erect carriage", have they thereby forfeited their humanity?
Selina,
I'm trying to get home from LAX so let me make just a few points before catching up on some much needed rest and dropping out of sight for the weekend.
1) Women will never be prosecuted for miscarriages any more than they are currently prosecuted for the accidental death of a toddler or newborn. For example, yesterday in Nashville, a teenage boy accidentally ran over his 5-year-old sister and killed her. No charges are filed even though a human life was lost. That's because we rightly recognize the teenage boy had no intent or motive to harm the child. (May God grant him grace for the overwhelming grief he must feel.) Thus, when it comes to miscarriage, I fail to see the significance of your point.
2) Suppose miscarriages are common: How does this fact a) refute the claim that embryos are human beings, and b) demonstrate that elective abortion is permissible? Many Third-World countries have high infant mortality rates. Are we to conclude that those infants who die early were never whole human beings? Moreover, how does it follow that because nature may spontaneously abort an embryo that I may deliberately kill one through elective abortion? Admittedly, these miscarriages are tragic events. But as journalist Andrew Sullivan points out, just because earthquakes happen doesn’t mean massacres are justified.
3)Regarding the unborn's humanity, you write: "According to the Princeton dictionary a human is 'any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage.' Does a zygote display any of these attributes?"
Question: Does a newborn display any of these characteristics? Are you, like Peter Singer, willing to bite the bullet and concede that your argument justifies infanticide as well as abortion? After all, newborns are not even self-aware for several months after birth and lack articulate speech for years to come. At the same time, your own view cannot account for basic human equality. That is to say, if humans have value only because of some acquired property like self-awareness or articulate language and not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees. Do we really want to say that those with more self-awareness and better speech are more human (and more valuable) than those with less? This relegates the proposition that all men are created equal to the ash heap of history. Philosophically, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature. In short, humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose during their lifetimes. If you deny this, it’s difficult to say why objective human rights apply to anyone.
3)
Oops, I cutt-off my last two points, so here they are:
3) FYI, if you are going to cite evidence against the humanity of the unborn, you need to cite an embryology textbook, not a common language dictionary! Nevertheless, your interpretation of the Princeton definition confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. Just because humans are "characterized" by superior intelligence and articulate speech does not mean they must have the immediate capacity to exercise those traits to count as human. A deaf mute who never learns to speak is still a human by nature even though he cannot articulate concepts the same way you and I can.
4) You write: "Well, living organisms change. An egg is not a chicken. A tadpole is not a frog. A girl is not a woman."
Actually, you are making my point. True, a girl is not an adult woman, but she is nevertheless a female human being. The tadpole, meanwhile, changes it's outward form as it develops through the stages of its life, but it remains the same kind of being through all of those changes. Likewise, the human embryo remains identical to itself through all of its developmental stages. It does not start as one kind of thing then change into something totally different. If you think it does, please cite credible scientific evidence to make your claim believable.
5) Regarding the woman's life or that of her child, these cases are almost non-existent in current medical technology. Nevertheless, you raise an important philosophical point: Who's life gets priority? Short answer: The mother’s. She should not be forced to forfeit her physical life when another human is unintentionally killing her
I could be wrong, but I suspect your objection here is really a smokescreen. That is, the abortion-choice position you defend is not that abortion should be legal only when a woman's life is in danger, but that abortion is a fundamental right she can exercise for any reason she wants during all nine months of pregnancy. Instead of defending this position with facts and arguments, you disguise it with an emotional appeal to the mother's life. But this will not make your case. The argument for the mothers' life only justifies abortion in cases of extreme physical risk, not for any reason the woman deems fit. In fact, arguing for abortion-on-demand from the hard case of medical necessity is like trying to argue for the elimination of all traffic laws because a person might have to break one rushing a loved one to the hospital. Proving an exception does not prove a rule.
So, let me ask you a question. I'm going to grant, as I think we should, that we keep abortion legal to save the mother's physical life. Will you join me in supporting legal restrictions on abortions done for socioeconomic reasons which, as studies on your side of the issue show, make up the overwhelming percentage of abortions?
Selina,
Thanks for replying.
This is my reply: I used this personal definition in terms of the point before conception. And the examples of the brain-dead body and murderer were used to stress the kaleidascope of meanings "human being" can have to us.
Point before conception? Huh? I'm not aware of very many people who think human beings exist before conception.
In this scenario you present, you use two separate bodies: victims and a killer. Is not the perpetrator acting outside of his body? The act of abortion occurs in women's bodies; these woman are not harming outside beings.
So then there is some objective meaning to the term "human being?" If victims of mass murderers (who didn't think their victims were human beings) were actually human beings, then the question of whether an entity is or isn't a human being isn't really personal, is it? There is some objective reality to who is and what isn't a human being. For example, I can't accurately assert my cat is a human being because I think he is nad he fits my personal definition, correct?
You now seem to be asserting that the unborn aren't human beings because they are located inside a woman's body. You can make that argument (which is much different than your "personal definition" argument) but you need to provide some kind of evidence or reasoning for how a short journey down the birth canal changes a non-human being into a human being. My daughter was the same organism before she emerged from my wife's womb and afterwards. She didn't magically become a new species simply because she changed location.
We can agree that after conception and the separation of the fetus from the mother that it is some "human being". The great debate is whether or not we consider the fetus in a woman's womb a "human being."
Have you ever been present at a birth before? Were you aware that the child isn't typically separated from the mother until sometime after birth? The child and mother are still attached to each other by the umbilical cord until that cord is clamped and cut. By your criteria, I made my born daughter a human being by cutting the umbilical cord after birth. I have trouble believing any rational human being could actually think the cutting of the umbilical cord (separating the child from the mother) makes the child a human being.
I'm curious what you think about abortion when rape or incest has been involved. With many Pro-Life groups grudgingly agreeing that abortion may be allowed in those circumstances, and with Scott disagreeing-- his stance being that women should not have an abortion "to make themselves feel better" -- what's your take of abortion in these tragic cases?
While I believe rape to be a horrendous crime and believe criminals who commit rape should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, I don't believe that a child conceived by rape has any less of a right to life than chil
Got cut off... rest of comment.
While I believe rape to be a horrendous crime and believe criminals who commit rape should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, I don't believe that a child conceived by rape has any less of a right to life than children conceived in love.
What do you make of a human being? Do you think it is only genetic, as Scott does, or is being human something more?
I believe organisms who have two human parents must be human. Human beings is a term for members of the species homo sapiens. Imagine if I asked you "What do you think makes something a cat? Is it only genetic or is it something more?"
I think we're talking past each other a bit because it seems like you're using the term "human being" when I think you should be using the term "person." Human being is a biological term while "person" is more of a philosophical term.
Numerous pro-choicers will admit the unborn are human beings because they recognize that scientific reality but then they'll claim the unborn aren't worthy of protection because they aren't "persons." They, however, then need to come up with some non-arbitrary definition of "personhood" and valid reasons for why their definition should be accepted.
According to the Princeton dictionary a human is "any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage". Does a zygote display any of these attributes?
Selina,
Here's the problem with using dictionary definitions - my 5-month old daughter doesn't have superior intelligence (my cats are currently probably just as intelligent), articulate speech (unless you consider "a-boo" and "a-goo" to be articulate) and hardly has an erect carriage.
Does that mean she isn't a human being?
Plus, I think you overlooked the first part of the definition "a human is 'any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by...." -
- the species is characterized by those traits while not all members of the species currently have all those traits.
The unborn would certainly fit into that definition since they are living member of the species homo sapiens.
I'll take this a bit of a time since school beings shortly for me. First, this is to John:
"Our one-year old son can't yet walk (heck, he can barely crawl). I can count the number of words he knows on one hand. And no one would seriously try to make the case that he possesses "superior intelligence"."
I would argue the case that he does have superior intelligence. Infants and children will absorb more information than we ever will in our later stages of life. Perhaps you have a different opinion of what "superior intelligence" means.
"Are all persons with low IQs human insofar as they do not possess so-called "superior intelligence"?"
Maybe if you considered people who have high IQs to have "superior intelligence" although I believe "superior intelligence" was made to differentiate us from animals.
"How about people who stutter? When I was a kid, I had a terrible stuttering problem."
Honestly, I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you defining those with superior intelligence people who don't stutter? Do you consider your intelligence defined by your speech skills?
"What about individuals who suffer severe paralysis such that they are unable to walk? Since they cannot be characterized by "erect carriage", have they thereby forfeited their humanity?"
Do they still display signs of "superior intelligence"? 
To Scott--I'll try to answer your last question first since it seems important, and move on to the rest when I get more time this weekend. Also, I am relieved that you think the potential mother's life is worth saving.
"Will you join me in supporting legal restrictions on abortions done for socioeconomic reasons which, as studies on your side of the issue show, make up the overwhelming percentage of abortions?"
It's very troubling when I think of rights being restricted without consultation of the very people that they affect. This legal restriction would only apply to females, and perhaps male medical professional involved in abortion. Also, most abortions are done to the economically disadvantaged; it seems easy for some of us, having the support of a stable family and living a fairly comfortable lifestyle, to tell these poor people that the only excuse they can have when electing to abort a fetus is when the mother's life is at stake. Their incomes pale to ours; many of us will never know the hardship of wondering how the next meal will be put on the table. Most women who have abortions lack support from a spouse that most of us take for granted. How can we, who are the least likely to encounter any of these issues, understand the value in their reasons?
I'd first like to see support from this group (female, poor, minorities) whom abortion most affects before I can support legal restrictions on abortion.
Women and men are roughly equally likely to favor restrictions on abortion. The poor and minorities are more likely to favor them than the rich and whites.
http://prolife.liberals.com/
opin...money_race.html
The polls I have on those last two points are a little old, so if anyone has newer ones I'd appreciate it.
Selina,
When human beings get expensive, may we kill them?
Seems that once again, your objection is question-begging. It assumes the unborn are not human beings.
Selina: "Do you think it is only genetic, as Scott does, or is being human something more?"
For years, people in favor of allowing human embryos/fetuses to be killed (via embryonic research, etc.) have argued that science is on their side, that those opposed are merely foisting their religious beliefs on the rest of the populace. When confronted with basic scientific reasoning that suggests otherwise, they then abandon science and argue that "there's more to being a person than a mere scientific definition."
Well, no, not really. Those brain-dead patients and criminals that you mentioned are human beings, even if they don't fit your non-scientific, romanticized, perhaps touchy-feely definition of what (who) constitutes a person. We mustn't confuse "being a human being" with "getting the most out of life." Human embryos cannot appreciate great poetry and experience love and friendship yet, but they're still human beings.
Scott: "Here's the problem: Abortion choicers must explain how two human parents can create offspring that is not human but later becomes human. Inventing a story just won't do."
And yet this is exactly what they must do for their arguments to work. They know that, scientifically, the human embryo or fetus is a human being, and so they must work backwards, trying to come up with some things embryos/fetuses cannot do so that they can then name those the new criteria for personhood. I've actually read one person argue, "Have you ever seen a fetus buying groceries?" Worse, a Harvard researcher explained to a journalist that he has no qualms performing ESCR, since, after all, he's "never cuddled with an embryo." Such are the mental gymnastics such people must do to try to make their case.
Selina: "Well, living organisms change. An egg is not a chicken. A tadpole is not a frog. A girl is not a woman."
An unfertilized egg -- the kind those who don't share my lacto-veg lifestyle like to buy and eat -- is not a chicken. If the egg WERE fertilized, then, yes, you'd have a chicken in his/her earliest stage of development. Several dictionaries I've just consulted online state that a tadpole IS a frog in the larval stage. And a girl is not a woman, yes, but that doesn't mean it's okay to kill the girl, simply because she hasn't yet reached adulthood. Both the girl and the woman are human beings. Such is the case with the unborn.
Selina: "I would argue the case that he does have superior intelligence. Infants and children will absorb more information than we ever will in our later stages of life."
Yes! "Will!" They WILL absorb more information -- i.e. they haven't done so yet, just as embryonic human beings haven't...yet.
I agree with Selina that what one holds for definitions is truly a personal thing, and depends a lot an individual's experiences and memories. When you advance your definitions, do you use intensional or extensional definitions? What do you feel about modalities and fuzziness in definitions? Why is your model of the world default until we find boolean inconsistencies between its extensions, axioms, and assumptions? Are you that opposed to paraconsistent logic? Your logic is not as cool as you think it is.
You are clearly well-educated Scott, but please stop pushing this emotional appeal centered around naively rough idea of what it means to be human. I see where you are coming from, you want people to be responsible, and you want to save lives of unborn humans. That is certainly admirable. Instead of trying to classify people as criminals, though, take a position that maximizes the quality of life for as many of us as possible. Be a force of positive influence for both the baby AND the woman, for all socioeconomic groups, rather than supporting hardship upon mothers whose problems are already big enough. Law is not the only answer to abortion. These are forward-thinking times and we need inter-disciplinary and novel ideas in order to eradicate this issue. Please consider changing your direction. We could use your help.
Steven,
To whom should a address my reply, a human being or something else?
I just decided, according to my personal intensional and extensional definitions, that Steven is not a human being. If there are those who, according to their personal ideology, contend that Steven is a human being, then they are welcome to their viewpoint but must not impose it on the rest of society.
Well it's funny you mention that, because I was actually born of a self-impregnating woman. So I guess I'm not human since I wasn't born of two people. Your definition carves out humanity too roughly, creating a nice abstraction which is easy to fit instances to, but frankly gets a lot of them wrong. Your ad-hominem response was cute, but doesn't really help me to see your human side beyond the hateful definitions and bigotry. I may be a bit different, but I am more humane, and just as human as you.
Steven.
We don't for a moment question your humanity, only your logic.
Natural conception via two parents is a sufficient condition for the start of human life, but it's not a necessary one. (Given you are well-versed in philosophical definitions, I'm sure you know what I mean.) For example, a child conceived through IVF or cloning is just as human as one coneived through natural reproduction.
Welcome to the human family! We're glad to have you!
"Your ad-hominem response was cute, but doesn't really help me to see your human side beyond the hateful definitions and bigotry."
Not an ad-hominem attack at all, but perhaps now you see the folly in the policy of "we'll leave it up to each individual to decide who is and who is not a human being, science be damned."
Do you get it now?
Its funny that you think something as crude as classical logic's conditional statement is going to capture the complexities of being human. This is the same conditional statement whose truth values are arbitrarily assigned, allowing contradictions to imply everything, false antecedents to imply the truth of the conditional, and requires absolutely no relevance between antecedent and consequent. The conditional was designed to formally mirror the common concept of logical consequence (a.k.a common sense intuition). Therefore it works well in cases where facts follow from common sense. Because sensible people still disagree with you, you have failed to justify its use.
Experts who use the conditional always ensure that there is a rigorous degree of relevance between p and q (where p -> q). In your definition, "conception" is grossly separated from what a bystander on the street would call a full-fledged "human".
Debating over the fuzzy notions of "conception", "start", and "human" won't help either. "Conception" is so coarse that it covers everything from ovulation to birth. Using your logic, I would say ovulation and birth are both necessary conditions for natural reproduction. Ovulation is not sufficient condition for the start of human life, however. Beyond all the bogus language, I'm not so sure "conception" (whatever is meant by that) is sufficient.
I'll reiterate that it's better to work towards handling undesirable circumstances on a case by case basis, rather than lazily sending women to court by way of an if-then conditional. I encourage you to keep working on your argument, if that is the approach you feel is best here.
Medical science provides a better opportunity to save lives and offer control to people who may or may not want children. You can bet your socks that the people at Durex don't use anything close to your theorem for human existence in the formulas behind their contraceptives.
@bmmg39 - when an argument attacks a person rather than the ideas and concepts in his argument, that argument is considered ad-hominem. By questioning my humanity you were hoping to gain support for your side - by attacking me, and not my argument.
With respect to the quote, it's hard to ask science to define what a human is and then place that definition into an ordinary sentence. We have no choice but to leave definitions up to the minds of individuals; be that the judge, jury, or woman involved. Knowing that, we should aim to keep ambiguity out of definitions so that we can all be on the "same page" (as much as possible).
Don't ever be complacent with laws which cause needless suffering.
Steven writes:
"We have no choice but to leave definitions up to the minds of individuals..." Well then, if I choose to define you out of existence, can you really complain? Further, I choose to define all of your alleged rules of logic subjectively, according to my own tastes.
Now what?
"@bmmg39 - when an argument attacks a person rather than the ideas and concepts in his argument, that argument is considered ad-hominem. By questioning my humanity you were hoping to gain support for your side - by attacking me, and not my argument."
I am merely carrying out your argument to its full extension. If you choose to argue that scientific fact is so "squishy" as to when a human being's life begins, then I am pointing out that someone can do the same with regard to your life, or to mine, or to anyone else's. In fact, some of the most horrific periods in human history began when one group of people "decided" that another group of people weren't actually human beings.
Oh, and if you're so into addressing the argument rather than attacking the person, then perhaps you'd care to explain some of these gems...
Steven:
"Your logic is not as cool as you think it is...stop pushing this emotional appeal centered around naively rough idea of what it means to be human."
I suppose remarks such as these -- backwards as they are, as our side is arguing AGAINST romanticized, touchy-feely emotional appeals as to what/who constitutes a human being (e.g. "when you make your first smile!") -- are perfectly all right if they come from your side and are coded in a passive-aggressive manner.
@Scott - One can define things and reason in a lot of ways, and it does depend on your tastes. Nadine chose modal logic because she wanted to entertain the possibility that you are correct, and you chose classical logic because you want to categorically equate women with criminals. There is no such universal logic to things, as much as we would like to think there is.
A potential X doesn't have to be an actual Y. X could be a concept - something that could possibly exist in nature, in the form you describe, but it doesn't have to be anything. In the metamorphic world of organism growth and development, unlike the world of law, the categorical approach is less appropriate (in my mind). I don't see a firm line between egg and baby, since with an egg it is harder to identify human attributes, and with a baby it is quite easy. If the human attributes were charted on a timeline as a egg grew into a baby, which ones would stand out as the beginning of the human being? Are we human down to our very last attribute?
@bmmg39 - Sorry if I seem passive aggressive. Are you upset with my verb choice? Perhaps I should have said "advancing this emotional appeal" rather than "pushing this emotional appeal". Yes, trying to categorically define human is naive. I'm not attacking anyone's character. Yes, what you did is ad-hominem. Not that I'm broken up by it...it was pretty pretty funny when Scott said it the first time.
Steven writes: "There is no such universal logic to things, as much as we would like to think there is."
If so, why are you correcting us with appeals to logic? Again, your claims are self-refuting.
So, is your position true? If so,it appears there is universal logic. If not, why should I believe your own subjective opinions?
FYI, when I asked earlier "To whom shall I address my reply?," that was not an ad-hominem but a simple question designed to show your case is self-defeating. You seem troubled that pro-lifers like me don't show our human side, yet in your worldview, strictly speaking, there are no humans save those we define subjectively. Seems you want your cake and eat it to.
I'll give you the last (subjective) word, Steven.
"Conception" is so coarse that it covers everything from ovulation to birth. Using your logic, I would say ovulation and birth are both necessary conditions for natural reproduction. Ovulation is not sufficient condition for the start of human life, however. Beyond all the bogus language, I'm not so sure "conception" (whatever is meant by that) is sufficient.
Wouldn't it simply be easier to ask what someone means by conception as opposed to believing that conception
could cover everything from ovulation to brith? Especially considering I've never heard anyone equate conception with either birth or ovulation.
Steven - you're also wrong to accuse Scott and bmmg39 of making ad hominems. They weren't attacking you and claiming your argument was wrong because of some quality you have. They were simply pointing out the rather absurd conclusions someone could come to if they accept the belief that the definition of what a human being is personal.
I'm also wondering why you think Scott is being admirable to try to "save the lives of unborn humans." From your comments, it seems that you don't believe the unborn have value if their mothers want to abort them (correct me if I'm wrong) yet you think it's admirable for Scott to try to save these lives. Why?
@Scott - I may have subjective opinions, but I don't need to convince you that your logic is flawed, limited, and archaic. Pick up a book on non-classical logics and contrast it with how you think now. When you find that there is no logic that you can fully rely on, then you can convince _yourself_, have a wonderful moment of contradiction, and spend a while in belief revision until you stumble upon the next thing which is self-evident and true in your mind.
It's wonderful and mysterious that I can communicate with you and receive your last word. As mysterious as it is, I can assure you that no truth trees or tables were involved before you conveyed the flawless logic and laser-precision of your concepts. If so, I'd love to see them. I'll wait while I'm eating all the cake that I have.
@JivinJ - You make a good point. I think in most people's minds conception doesn't include birth or ovulation, but in many sources it is included as part of the continuous process involved in development. Fuzzy biological lines divide the stages of development, but never a fine line. That's why I don't think a categorical approach to its analysis is appropriate. Running your hand under water is somewhat cold and somewhat hot. You don't have to have a word for every kind of warm it is.
Maybe I was misunderstood, since you assume I hold no value in the unborn if the mothers wish to abort them. Rather, I think women may deserve more consideration than the unborn beings, and that these things should be handled on a case by case basis.
Free tip: Whenever somebody starts throwing around big philosophical words, he's playing games with you. You can play along with him if you have the free time to do so, but don't expect much.
The basic question of abortion is really simple: What is an unborn child?
Is he (or she) a human being with rights, or a non-human mass of tissue? Scott makes a convincing case that unborn children are human beings with rights. Pro-choicers usually prefer to duck the issue and talk about women's rights instead.
Pro-lifers believe that women have rights. Really, we do. However, we don't generally believe that women's rights extend to a Right to Kill Other Human Beings except in the narrowly-defined case of self-defense. So the debate isn't about women's rights at all.
Some pro-choicers are actually brave enough to take on the question directly. Of those, most attempt to define humanity in a way that excludes unborn children. The problem with that logic is that it leads straight to Peter-Singer-Land, in which some born humans can also be defined as non-human. Justifications for abortion also become justifications for infanticide, euthanasia, and other horrors.
A few pro-choicers are actually honest enough to admit that unborn children are human beings. Judith Jarvis Thomson's odious "violinist" analogy accepted (for the sake of argument) the humanity of the unborn ... and then argued that we could kill them anyway. I'll direct you to an excellent rebuttal of Thomson's arguments by the Libertarians for Life:
http://www.l4l.org/library/thomviol.html
Philosophy majors can debate the splitting of hairs, but the basic question of abortion remains simple and easily-understood: What is an unborn child?
More than just playing games, my point is to show that humans are not as rigidly defined as Scott says they are, specifically with respect to development. The Louis Pasteur argument (child born of two humans is a human), is logical and even somewhat sensible when looking at billions of examples of real-life evidence. One example can show the argument invalid, and it occurs in the case of any F1-hybrid species - notably in mules and some kinds of fish. Animals breed complicated mixtures of both their parent's DNA and the environment in which they develop, we're not talking about legos that fit together to form new legos.
Scott, as an expert in bio-ethics and head of a think tank called "Stand to Reason", would never divulge such truths of biology. Nor would he expect somebody to challenge him on his logic and reasoning. Both fields are too specialized and remote for the common person to fully understand.
And yet, it is in exactly with logic and biology that argument falls to pieces!
Yes, an important issue is the distinction between masses of tissue and humans with rights. Another non-dismissable issue concerns the needs of the women involved. Further still, what can be done to prevent undesirable circumstances in the first place (contraceptives come to mind)? And what can be done to arbitrate between a woman and her unexpected development in the rare situations where she would want to let it go?
Ayn rand (the mother of your Libertarianism) was opposed to abortion, as are the vast majority of her Libertarian followers today. She stated that "abortion is a moral right-which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved." ("Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 6). Clearly she didn't think it was just an issue of the child vs. non-child.
(*leaving the discussion with teh awesome Ayn Rand quote*)
Ayn rand (the mother of your Libertarianism) was **not** opposed to abortion, **nor** are the vast majority of her Libertarian followers today. She stated that "abortion is a moral right-which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved." ("Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 6). Clearly she didn't think it was just an issue of the child vs. non-child.
(*leaving the discussion with teh awesome Ayn Rand quote*)
One example can show the argument invalid, and it occurs in the case of any F1-hybrid species - notably in mules and some kinds of fish. Animals breed complicated mixtures of both their parent's DNA and the environment in which they develop, we're not talking about legos that fit together to form new legos.
You're misrepresenting the argument (though I'm guessing the misrepresentation is unintentional). The scientific law isn't that only two individuals of the same species can mate and produce offspring. That clearly wouldn't be true since we know some species (like horses and donkeys and tigers and lions) can interbreed and create offspring.
The law is that when two individuals of the same species mate (like when two humans have sex) and create an organism (the unborn) through that reproduction, the organism (the unborn) they reproduce must be the same species they are.
Actually, I'm not a Libertarian by any means. I just found the L4L rebuttal to be convincing. I also find it useful to cite non-traditional pro-life arguments in these types of arguments, because it proves that abortion is a basic issue of human rights on which people of many different faiths, moral backgrounds, and cultures can (and should) agree.
Furthermore, I find much of Ayn Rand's writing (especially her pathological hatred of religion) to be utterly odious ... but that's off-topic for this discussion.
Steven wrote:
More than just playing games, my point is to show that humans are not as rigidly defined as Scott says they are, specifically with respect to development.
First, you're trying to give us a lecture on philosophy. Now, you're pretending to be an expert on human embryology. Your arguments are shifting ... looks like game-playing to me.
The Louis Pasteur argument (child born of two humans is a human), is logical and even somewhat sensible when looking at billions of examples of real-life evidence.
Glad you agree with us. Or are you setting us up for a sucker punch?
One example can show the argument invalid, and it occurs in the case of any F1-hybrid species - notably in mules and some kinds of fish.
That is your logical sucker punch? Bah. Show me a real-world example of a human-hybrid species, and we'll talk. However, that's not the issue here, because all of the unborn children killed via abortion are 100% genetically human.
Animals breed complicated mixtures of both their parent's DNA and the environment in which they develop, we're not talking about legos that fit together to form new legos.
Again, you should offer up a human example if you want to be relevant. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
Scott, as an expert in bio-ethics and head of a think tank called "Stand to Reason", would never divulge such truths of biology. Nor would he expect somebody to challenge him on his logic and reasoning. Both fields are too specialized and remote for the common person to fully understand.
See, that's where you're wrong. Firstly, people challenge Scott -- just like you're doing -- all of the time. Secondly (and more importantly), good ethics and logic should be explainable to a layperson. In fact, if you can't explain your ethics or logic to a layperson, your inability to do so is a sign that your reasoning may be faulty. After all, neither ethics nor logic will do any good for anyone if they are the exclusive territory of ivory-tower intellectuals. Your ideas must reach the "common man" (as you put it) if they're going to do any good.
As an aside, Scott is very good at explaining his ideas to laypeople.
Steven also wrote:
Yes, an important issue is the distinction between masses of tissue and humans with rights.
That's not "an" important issue. It's the important issue. What is an unborn child?
Another non-dismissable issue concerns the needs of the women involved.
Nobody wants to dismiss the needs of women, especially not pro-lifers. That's why pro-lifers pour so much time, money, and effort into crisis-pregnancy centers. Ironically, I don't see many so-called feminists following our lead....
Still, the needs of women are a secondary issue to the basic human rights of the unborn children. No reasonable person would argue that finishing one's education or getting a better job should entitle a woman to kill her three-year-old child. Yet these same reasons are often cited as justifications for killing unborn children. Why?
It all comes back to the main question: What is an unborn child?
Further still, what can be done to prevent undesirable circumstances in the first place (contraceptives come to mind)?
Abstinence education comes to mind. 
The contraception debate is a thorny one, and pro-lifers disagree on the subject. Personally, I don't see how we could make contraception any more available that we already have -- unless we want to make them mandatory -- and we're still killing over a million unborn children every year. Furthermore, the states with the most pro-contraception policies also seem to have some of the highest abortion rates. So I'm not convinced that contraception is the "silver bullet" solution that many pro-choicers like to claim it is....
And what can be done to arbitrate between a woman and her unexpected development in the rare situations where she would want to let it go?
"Unexpected development"? Is that another euphemism for an unborn child? I hadn't heard that one before now....
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. Would you be willing to re-phrase your question so that I can take a shot at answering it?
@Naaman - You might find this interesting, though it's not intended as a sucker punch.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/healt...lth/
7323298.stm
@jivinj - The Pasteur relation is two-way. The above link a counter-example in one direction. In the other direction, miscarriages are an example (to me), not recognizable as human.
Steven,
You're wrong on this. No one is claiming that two different species can't be breed to create a new organism or that artificial means of reproduction can't create human beings.
Pasteur's research didn't attempt to disprove either of those things. His research showed that when two organisms of the same species reproduce, they reproduce an organism of their species. Your continued protestations at this law of science seem to indicate your position on abortion is not allowing you to accept basic tenets of reality.
Just because unborn organisms die through miscarriage before they are born in no way proves they weren't organisms before they were born so you'll have to come up with something a tad more persuasive than a single sentence assertion without a shred of reasoning behind it. Seriously, what if I said, " In the other direction, sudden infant death are an example (to me), not recognizable as human."
Not very persuasive, correct?
Steven, thanks for the link to the mouse-human hybrids in the UK. I knew they were headed that way, but I didn't know if they'd actually achieved success. Yet another example of why science should always be guided by ethics....
Anyway, while your example is interesting (and horrifying), it's not really relevant to the discussion of abortion rights. As JJ & I keep trying to tell you, the unborn children who are being killed by the thousands every day are not hybrids. They are 100% genetically human. They are the children of human mothers & fathers, and they are human themselves.
The BBC has a collection of fascinating quotes about their embryo dilemma:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...ics/
7310496.stm
My favorite is from Bishop Wright, the noted Anglican theologian:
The irony is that this secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between.
Too right, Wright. 
"Anyway, while your example [of a human-hybrid species] is interesting (and horrifying), it's not really relevant to the discussion of abortion rights."
"That is your logical sucker punch? Bah. Show me a real-world example of a human-hybrid species, and we'll talk."
->
I agree that your contradiction is tangential to the issue (not the only issue) we are arguing. My evidence simply sheds more light on the vague distinction between human and non-human. Cow-human, mice-human, human-human, and cow-mice-whatever embryos are all valuable organisms, and it is a shame if they must suffer needlessly. However, I really don't think those embryos did much suffering, nor was their death a great loss.
I am not fighting for the right to kill things. I'm arguing for your side to drop it's categorical logic as applied to human beings, since as I have demonstrated with evidence, metaphor, thought experiments, and straight reasoning that your approach is completely ridiculous.
You may not want to split hairs but, when it comes to pain and suffering, I've got all the time in the world.
"I'm arguing for your side to drop it's categorical logic as applied to human beings, since as I have demonstrated with evidence, metaphor, thought experiments, and straight reasoning that your approach is completely ridiculous."
You think so, huh? Even after your arguments didn't stand up to even the first counterexample?
The first counterexample was classified as ad-hominem and dismissed, since it was attempting to poke fun at me, in addition ineffectively to trying to show first order classical logic superior to more expressive logics (apparently they are subjective).
It is not necessary to debate if an intelligent adult is human. It _is_ necessary to address the claim that an embryo or fetus is human, since that is an important and controversial issue. I have done that repeatedly with evidence, metaphor, thought experiments, and straight reasoning.
In case you are having trouble following, my main thesis is that embryos are conceptually somewhere between human and non-human (much closer to non-human), that it is inappropriate to classify an embryo categorically as the same thing as a human, and that embryos should not be afforded legal protection over grown women. I go further to suggest that fetuses and women may be deserving of equal consideration in some cases.
Suppose "conceives with" is a binary operation over the set of all humans. To show that (human "conceives with" human) generates another human, it is necessary to show that "conceives with" closes over all humans. This is (in mathematical terms, for sake of yet another argument) is what your side has failed to do.
We want to show that for all X,
X "conceives with" X is an X
We know that each individual human has unique DNA. We also know that when two humans reproduce, the embryo is composed of the DNA from both parents. Take a, b humans from the set.
So a "conceives with" b is an ab, not an a or b. Rats.
Let's try again. We know that environmental factors make up a lot of a person's individuality, call this p. We also know that not all of the DNA from each parent comes across into the offspring. So it really looks more like this:
a "conceives with" b is an p~a~b, not an a or b. Rats.
Try again? We know that many things which we call human are not found in embryos. Heartbeat, central nervousness, sense of humor, sensitivity to pain, etc etc. Call this q. So life really begins like this
aq "conceives with" bq is an p~a~b, later growing into p~a~bq. Rats.
I can't seem to make the operation work. In fact it looks like figuring out exactly what a human is might be quite difficult. Maybe you can give me a better proof. Mind writing up that Pasteur one for me? I think it would help to see the details.
Suppose "conceives with" is a binary operation over the set of all humans.
Why would we suppose that? If a scientific law states that "when two organisms of the same species reproduce, they reproduce an organism(s) of the same species" it doesn't necessarily mean that the only way to create a certain organism is to have two species sexually reproduce.
Your binary operations and their conclusions seem rather silly to me. I mean, it's like you have no evidence for your position that the unborn aren't human beings so you have to come up with these binary operations in place of actual evidence or argument. Sense of humor? Seriously when do you think humans get a sense of humor? I guess we're not human beings until that happens because that's one of the "many things which (you) call human." Do you have any idea of how horribly unpersuasive you are?
It is not necessary to debate if an intelligent adult is human.
Why not? You claimed previously that the definition of human was personal. Would you like to disassociate yourself from your previous position?
It _is_ necessary to address the claim that an embryo or fetus is human, since that is an important and controversial issue. I have done that repeatedly with evidence, metaphor, thought experiments, and straight reasoning.
Umm.... not really. You really haven't provided any evidence the unborn aren't human beings. You've provided evidence that the hybrid human/cows embryos can be created by using a cloning technique (something I already knew) but that's a non-sequitur since it has no bearing on whether the unborn are human organisms.
You've thrown around a lot of terms which I'm not familiar with and you don't seem to even really know what an ad hominem is. They were poking fun at your poor argument not at you personally. The fact that you still don't get this, signals to me that your logic (whichever form you're using) is a little shaky.
Steven,
I can't seem to make the operation work. In fact it looks like figuring out exactly what a human is might be quite difficult. Maybe you can give me a better proof.
Actually, it's quite simple. Once you push aside all the rubbish (like the preposterous idea that a sense of humor or sensitivity to pain is what makes us human - I guess I ceased being a human when I got my wisdom teeth removed) - a human being (or human organism) is a living organism that is a member of the species homo sapiens.
Now - you can: 1.) try to prove the unborn aren't living organisms (which is somewhat difficult because they're growing and developing)
2.) admit the unborn are living organisms but try to prove the unborn aren't human organisms (which is somewhat difficult because they have human parents and if allowed to develop will someday become what you admit to be human beings and as far as I know, an organism can't change its species over the span of its life)
3.) admit the unborn are living human organisms but claim they aren't persons (which is something I believe I suggest you do a while ago) and then claim your criteria of personhood is correct and why we should accept it and back it up with solid reasoning.
If you don't want to actually provide any evidence or reasoning for the positions you assume, then I suggest you might save us all some time and take your binary show on the road.
1) Answer - The unborn are living organisms. We agree here.
2) Answer - According to your definition, the unborn are human organisms.
3) Answer - According to your definition, the unborn are persons. Good for you!
4) Attack logic behind silly definitions which, when translated into law, favor long polymers of sugar (DNA) over grown women.
Ok, no more math. This time I'll try humor...
Two polymers of sugar walk into a bar. One says to the other, "hey, I think I've seen you here before." The other says "No, I've never seen you in my life." The other sugar just looks at him and says "Hmm, I thought I had seen you before... Maybe it was just another person."
Steven,
2.) If we agree that the unborn are living organisms - what species of organism do you think they are if they aren't human beings? Please explain how two organisms of the same species can sexually reproduce another organism which is a different species from them but then later in life becames the same species as them? What magical function changes this living organism of one species into an organism of another species?
3.) Actually, I don't like use the category of "personhood" because I believe it's merely an attempt to discriminate against certain human beings based on arbitrary criteria. But you could at least try to make an argument for this position. I'm not saying I'll agree with it, but it's a much better road than simply claiming miscarriaged children aren't human beings because you don't think they are or that the definition of human being is personal.
4). Prolifers don't favor human DNA over women. That's a strawman. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that maybe you just don't understand the prolife position very well. I'll try to explain.
Prolifers often point out the reality that the unborn are organisms with human DNA as evidence for individuals who don't accept the reality that the unborn are human beings. Prolifers don't think laws should favor one human being over another but we think all human beings (not their DNA strands) regardless of their size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency shouldn't be killed without proper justification.
Steven: "It is not necessary to debate if an intelligent adult is human."
J: "Why not? You claimed previously that the definition of human was personal."
That was my entire point; once we accept that the definition of "human being" is a personal one rather than a scientific one, everybody is fair game.
J: "They were poking fun at your poor argument not at you personally."
It's almost funny how everyone seems to grasp this except for Steven. Oops! That's ad hominem, right, because it's only okay when Steven does it?
@jivinj - 2.) I agree that the unborn should be categorized as a human being in many contexts. This categorization aids us with finding food, managing habitats, testing drugs, and choosing pets, to name a few. We each have a choice of when to use the biological classification and when to choose a ones from psychology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, or something else.
You seem happy with the biological classification for _all_ purposes, and seem content with mapping that straight over to law. That's fine if you think that way. In reality, you can classify humans in an endless variety of ways, and that is what the rest of us (quite correctly) do. The burden of proof is yours, not mine, to show why the biologists are better than everyone else at bridging law and fetal growth. From the chemist's point of view you are just a chemical, but none of us want that written into the rulebooks.
3.) I also agree that the term "personhood" has been used for unfair discrimination under the law. I don't (as you suggest) take the position against it in my arguments. I have tried to keep my focus as narrow as possible, mostly picking apart the antecedent to Scott's conditional.
It's the logic and reasoning that I'm here to pick apart. I'm opposed to people criticizing others with words like, "proving", "sufficient condition", "good scientific reasoning", when it is clear that they don't actually know enough about logic or reasoning to be authoritative.
Conditionals are very tricky to use properly, especially when reasoning in such a conceptually loose domain. You can't just use evidence and verbal argument to convince skeptics to relate the antecedent to the consequent. And you certainly shouldn't be relying on classical logic so much. I pointed out many of those shortcomings in Scott's argument. With his argument in particular, the categorical reasoning is very awkward on the biological side of things.
4). Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I was implicitly claiming that a human at the earliest stages of development is little more than a complex organic chemical. At most, it is a small mass of cells. I was also implicitly attacking the idea that women should be discouraged from harming this chemical/mass of cells (say thorough plan-b if it really is invasive). The two ideas are very related, and I saw it more as an important edge case rather than a straw man.
"Prolifers don't think laws should favor one human being over another but we think all human beings (not their DNA strands) regardless of their size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency shouldn't be killed without proper justification."
I don't see how you expect women or judges to ignore these various factors. This severely limits the choice of the female in so many cases. All we need to do to offer more freedom and reduce suffering is to apply a different definition. The cost/benefit analysis really says it all.
@bmmg39 - Once
@bmmg39 - Once I saw this fully grown man. He was walking and talking. He had DNA all over him. I think his parent's gave it to him. I swear he was human. I don't know how to prove it to you though. I don't grasp it!! I guess you win.
Today, a special treat. You get logic.
If an organism is conceived of two humans, then that organism is a human.
Simple if-then truth table
P Q P -> Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
Suppose ~P. (Suppose an organism is not conceived of two humans, say two bears)
So P -> Q is true! No need for all this bickering over human vs. non-human after all!
Isn't classical logic great!
Steven,
I agree that the unborn should be categorized as a human being in many contexts. This categorization aids us with finding food, managing habitats, testing drugs, and choosing pets, to name a few. We each have a choice of when to use the biological classification and when to choose a ones from psychology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, or something else.
OK, we seem to be making progress here. Does this mean you agree the unborn are biological human beings?
You seem happy with the biological classification for _all_ purposes, and seem content with mapping that straight over to law. That's fine if you think that way. In reality, you can classify humans in an endless variety of ways, and that is what the rest of us (quite correctly) do. The burden of proof is yours, not mine, to show why the biologists are better than everyone else at bridging law and fetal growth.
Hold the horses here. I'm happy with a biological classification of human beings because human beings (like cats, dogs, and other species) is a biological classification. I think biological realities can help us make decisions about what laws should be. Now maybe you can make a valid argument that even though the unborn are biological human beings, it should still be legal to kill them (and possibly other biological human beings) because of reason A, B, or C. But what you've done at this comment thread is attempt to argue the unborn aren't human beings because of A, B, or C and because the unborn aren't human beings it should be legal to kill them. If you want to argue that a woman has complete bodily autonomy and should therefore have the right to kill her biological unborn children, make that argument. Don't pretend the unborn aren't human beings.
I was implicitly claiming that a human at the earliest stages of development is little more than a complex organic chemical. At most, it is a small mass of cells.
Sure, the unborn (especially at their earliest stage of development) are small. But you haven't provided any evidence regarding showing how small size makes tiny biological human beings "little more than" a strand of DNA and therefore it should be legal to kill them. I guess I could use the same reasoning to argue that most human beings are just "large masses of cells." This seems to be kind of your thing - asserting some fact about the unborn (they're small, the don't have a sense of humor, they can't feel pain, etc.) and then assume this somehow proves they aren't human. This kind of argument (if you can call it that) doesn't fit with any kind of logic I'm familiar with.
I don't see how you expect women or judges to ignore these various factors.
I don't expect them to ignore them. They (like you) have to make the case that these factors are proper justification for killing biological human beings.
Steven, I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove/think you have proven, but the truth of a statement's inverse doesn't affect the truth of the statement itself.
Neither does the truth of the statement's converse. In fact, we remember this when considering cloning. When a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum, the result is a human being in the embryonic stage. But the converse isn't necessarily true: that, if you have a human being, he or she must have been the product of a sperm fertilizing an ovum. "If p, then q" being true doesn't necessarily mean that "if q, then p" is true.
Only the statement's contrapositive is necessarily true, not its converse or its inverse. With me so far?
@jivinj - Yes, I agree that the "unborn" are "biological human beings" according to some sense of the definition you provided, under some interpretation of those terms. No, I'm not foolish enough to define exactly what it means to be human.
"I'm happy with a biological classification of human beings because human beings (like cats, dogs, and other species) is a biological classification."
Sorry if I seem rude, but this seems very circular. I think I see where you are going, though. Maybe I wasn't clear that lots of fields have their own classifications/definitions for human being. In fact, the biologists themselves have at least 26.
http://scienceblogs.com/
evolving...es_concepts.php
The main problem with differentiating organisms based on sexual reproduction, is that not all organisms sexually reproduce.
So not only must you justify the biological definition over non-biological definitions, but now you have to justify your controversial biological position over other biological positions.
@bmmg00 - Yes, I'm with you. You completely missed my point, and I even went through the trouble of drawing a truth table for you.
"but the truth of a statement's inverse doesn't affect the truth of the statement itself"
That would be true if you were not using the law of excluded middle (LEM) in your reasoning. Such is the case with constructive, intuitionistic, three-valued, and fuzzy logic (to name a few). However, these arguments you keep defending are very dependent on LEM being true. Thanks for arguing my point though.
Check out these wiki links. It appears you still have to learn about developments in logic over the past 80 years. These cover some important topics concerning conditionalized sentences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mat...ial_conditional
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ind...ive_conditional
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cou...ual_conditional
http://plato.stanford.edu/entrie...ogic-relevance/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vac...i/
Vacuous_truth
When I received an "A" in Logic, it was definitely within the last eighty years, even if, some days, it may seem like it was longer ago than that. I imagine that a class I took in 1991 included innovations in the study that transpired after 1928. But thanks for the heads-up.
None of the links you provided seem to have anything to do with our rather straightforward argument, but rather glorify the non sequitur. No one here is making an argument along the lines of "If Ken Griffey Jr. finally gets his 600th home run, then fertilization brings about a new human life."
@bmmg39 - Can you get your money back?
In all seriousness, you probably learned SL and PL in your intro courses. SL is the decidable one, and stops it's granularity at the sentence level. PL (predicate logic - 1887) is the one that math students use when their learning the discipline. I suspect they teach these ones first because they are easy formal systems to pick up, and they map somewhat well to people's intuitive understandings of logic. The reason I assumed Scott's logic was one of these is because of the characteristic language he was using. But yeah, we have come a long way since Tarski and Godel redefined everything back in the mid 1930's. Sorry you didn't learn anything from the links. I find vacuous truth particularly interesting, and applicable to Scott's conditional.
*they are
Steven,
No, I'm not foolish enough to define exactly what it means to be human.
Then how can you claim the unborn aren't??? Please provide some kind of valid non-biological basis for assessing if the unborn are a members of our species or not? I'm guessing you can't because it's nonsense to provide a non-biological basis for assess what something is biologically.
Sorry if I seem rude, but this seems very circular. I think I see where you are going, though. Maybe I wasn't clear that lots of fields have their own classifications/definitions for human being. In fact, the biologists themselves have at least 26.
http://scienceblogs.com/ evolving...es_concepts.php
I just re-read the convo to figure out what you are saying here. I found this, in response to Selina:
"I think we're talking past each other a bit because it seems like you're using the term "human being" when I think you should be using the term "person." Human being is a biological term while "person" is more of a philosophical term."
If you are assuming that we must use biological definitions, then you only have to narrow down the ( >26 ) biological definitions. I don't see why you biology is some privileged science, though. If you really want, I'll go find some "human being" definitions from psychology and AI for you.
The point is (and has always been), that there is more than one way to make strong definitions. Unfortunately A is not always ~~A (and lots of other sticky problems exist), so we can't be 100% objective. A classification cannot be true, but can be convenient. There is always room for improvement, suggestion, reduction, testing, etc. I'm not trying to invalidate the concept of definition, like everyone's extremist comments seem to think. I'm advocating for more accuracy and better reasoning behind them. The woman-ignorant definition you propose simply won't do.
Steven,
It appears my last comment was cut off for some reason.
The woman-ignorant definition you propose simply won't do.
I'm not seeing how using a biological term biologically is "woman-ignorant." Maybe you could actually try to make an argument instead of just making assertions.
I think I'm done with discussion because you really haven't added anything. This whole definition being subjective crap is just really, really boring. You've already conceded in a rather weaselly way that the unborn are biological human beings. Why you couldn't just concede it straight up seems to indicate to me that you're not really interested in finding the truth.
Your link doesn't say what you say it does. They don't have 26 definitions of human beings - they have 26 ways of classifying species - my guess is if you asked the guy at the science blog if the question of whether an organism was a member of the species homo sapiens was a biological question, he'd answer in the positive.
A classification cannot be true, but can be convenient.
So if someone said "Steven is a human being" - that statement would be "convenient" but not true?
Define "subjective crap". I rest my case.
Word.
Steven, do you care to answer Jivin's last question?
Steven,
I love how you get your friend from Cal Poly to post a one word comment two minutes after your last comment. It's nice to know the Association for Computing Machinery sticks together. But I don't think it adds much to your lack of argument.
I think you misunderstood my comment which is probably partially my fault because of how I phrased it.
I probably should have written - This whole "definition being subjective" crap is just really, really boring -
So when I'm talking about crap - I'm talking about almost your whole line of assertion/argument where instead of making a reasoned argument for your position you just try to act like definitions (except when you use them, I guess) don't really mean anything.
I would be interested in your response to the last question in my last comment. Is it true you're a human being or is that just a convenient statement?
I actually pulled my claim directly out of a book called "Science and Method" by Henri Poincare. Poincare, sometimes credited as having discovered special relativity long before Einstein, actually did something even more impressive. He discovered something brand new to logic and reasoning - statements that are neither true nor false.
While Godel would later come along and give proof to this notion, Poincare did it by example. He created a type of geometry where straight lines eventually circle back upon themselves, and every line has an infinite number of parallels at a given distance (contradicting Euclid's parallel postulate). This contradicted Euclid's ~2000 year old geometry (the geometry that all of us learn in school). Shortly after, countless new geometries were discovered just by replacing the Euclid's fifth postulate/axiom with some other unprovable statement. The dogmatic approach to geometry espoused by the Greeks, Romans, ... Americans, was not only challenged, but completely undermined on a logical level. In the scientific community this is old news.
Poincare was one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians of the twentieth century. Since we are discussing scientific definitions, it made sense to reference him. Many scientists today still share his views on objectivity, and many go much further still.
Here's the passage I referenced when making that claim. While not a premise-conclusion style argument, I hope it helps you understand:
"It will be said that science is only a classification and that a classification cannot be true, but convenient. But it is true that it is convenient, it is true that it is so not only for me, but for all men; it is true that it will remain convenient for our descendants; it is true finally that this cannot be by chance. In sum, the sole objective reality consists in the relations of things whence results the universal harmony. Doubtless these relations, this harmony, could not be conceived outside of a mind which conceives them. But they are nevertheless objective because they are, will become, or will remain, common to all thinking beings."
In my studies of logic, I have seen the same thing. Axioms can be replaced at will, and entirely new systems of knowledge and reasoning emerge. While this may be unsettling for people who still hold on to the idea that logic is the one true foundation, I have learned that it is better to choose a logic that best fits with intuition, letting the individual mind be the final arbiter of "truth/objectivity", not some semantically disconnected formal system.
Okay, so to finally answer your question, on the truth and falsity of "Steven is a human being". I would say that from fuzzy, modal, classical, and pretty much any common kind of logic, this is a sensible claim. It also follows from "Any organism born of two human beings is human being"+"Steven is an organism born of two human beings".
My complaint is that "Any organism bo
My complaint is that "Any organism born of two human beings is human being" does not fit with people's intuitions about embryos or fetuses, and that if we must use "human being", than we should probably change our logic to be a lot more forgiving. Such as when Nadine kept talking about the "possibility", she was using a modal logic argument. Since definitions are axiomatic by nature (they suppose the existence of some object, or mentally construct it from something else), both Nadine and Scott have freedom to define "human being" in whatever way they feel is most convenient for the rest of their thought process.
I have learned that it is better to choose a logic that best fits with intuition, letting the individual mind be the final arbiter of "truth/objectivity", not some semantically disconnected formal system.
Steven,
That's not a logic. That's you taking your intuitive beliefs (whether they be based on logical or reasoned thought or not) and then claiming your beliefs are the final arbitrator of truth. Your argument basically boils down to this: "The unborn aren't human beings because I don't think they are." I'm sorry but that's completely unpersuasive.
I didn't ask if "Steven is human being" was a "sensible" claim. I asked if it was true. Is a true claim?
My complaint is that "Any organism born of two human beings is human being" does not fit with people's intuitions about embryos or fetuses, and that if we must use "human being", than we should probably change our logic to be a lot more forgiving.
Well, people's intuitions have no bearing on whether something is actually true or not. People intuitively believe a number of false things which is why basing whether something is true or not on people's intuition is such a horribly poor way of figuring out if something is true or not. People used to intuitively believe the sun revolved around the earth - that didn't make it true.
Here's another example - many Americans have false beliefs about cancer - but according to your flawed way of thinking - pollution is a greater risk factor for lung cancer than smoking for the 40% of people who believed it was simply because they believed it was.
I didn't ask if "Steven is human being" was a "sensible" claim. I asked if it was true. Is a true claim?
Yes, it is a true claim; a fully grown, intelligent, successful person born of two human beings is a human being. Good one, very convincing!
That's not a logic. That's you taking your intuitive beliefs (whether they be based on logical or reasoned thought or not) and then claiming your beliefs are the final arbitrator of truth.
Yep, the 100-billion-neuron supercomputer sitting atop my shoulders can pattern recognize truth far better than your logic can preserve it.
I'm not really sure what you mean by truth, though. Care to define it? Define your logic too if you are adventurous. I prefer model-theoretic definitions...I feel they keep out the ambiguity pretty well. I'm willing to go with whatever you want. As somebody who is so versed in logic, surely you are able to provide a good formal definition.
Steven,
Yes, it is a true claim
So I guess you're abandoning the assertion - "A classification cannot be true, but can be convenient."
It's also noteworthy that you've not attempted to defend your position that "people's intuitions" influence whether something is true or not besides noting that your brain is a "100-billion-neuron supercomputer."
That's all nice and good but it fails to recognize your and my "100-billion-neuron supercomputers" make mistakes and believe untrue things on a daily basis. Just because human beings have highly sophisticated brains doesn't mean our brains (and intuitions) are completely trustworthy.
Are the answers to scientific question (like say - whether the sun revolves around the earth or what species a certain organism belongs to) dependent on people's intuitions? Or are the answers to those questions completely independent from what people believe?
I'm not really sure what you mean by truth, though.
When I first read this I thought it was a rather silly comment but then when I looked back at our conversation I think you may have gotten to the bottom of some of our disagreements. I see truth as something completely outside of my beliefs. For example, something is objectively true or false regardless of what I believe.
In fact, I'm pretty certain I believe a number of false things - I just wish I knew what they were. Do you think you hold any beliefs which aren't true but aren't aware of their untruth? Or do you think your beliefs are the fount of truth?
From some of your previous comments, it seems to me that you think of truth differently than I do - how else could you think people's intuitions have any bearing on whether something is a human being or not? - you seem to think that an individual's beliefs control whether something is true or not for them - at least in some cases (like whether the unborn are human beings).
So maybe the disagreement isn't truly over what the unborn are (since you've already agreed they are biological human beings) but over whether truth is actually true or if truth is just something Steven's brain manufactures.
For sake of brevity, I can't address everything. I do agree that we are getting to the crux of our differences.
I see truth as something completely outside of my beliefs. For example, something is objectively true or false regardless of what I believe.
To me, the idea of truth is fascinating. I think of it as a tool that can used to approximate and understand the repeated patterns of the universe. It can be used, as you say, to formalize justification independently of people, which is great. The problem is that truth can be defined in too many ways. One can never be sure that the justification is correct. This is where it becomes a personal thing.
A common way of defining a logic (logical and non-logical symbol meanings) is by creating a formal interpretation, but this gets into pretty hard math. An interesting part of creating an interpretation, though, is defining your truth values. Most people think you can only have "true" and "false", but there is absolutely nothing confining you to that (except maybe your own resistance or confidence).
Here's a couple of examples:
Lukasiewicz Logic - {0, 1/2, 1}
So "Most old men are mostly bald" can be made precise by assigning numbers between 0 and 1 to "old", "bald", and each "most".
Fuzzy Logic - [0,1]
This is the same idea as above, but with a continuous range of truth values.
Side note: Fuzzy logic is used a lot in mechanical engineering and robotics. A variant of Lukasiewicz logic is used to drive most database management systems.
The two examples are by no means comprehensive. I'm pretty sure there is an uncountably infinite number of truth value sets you could make, if you wanted.
In addition to truth values, your choice of logical operators, inference rules, and axioms has a huge impact on how truth is preserved in your logic. But until you decide what you want in your interpretation and logic, it's not really possible to speak precisely about a topic or tell others their logic is wrong.
Unfortunately many of your complaints are well founded. I've seen various kinds of logics proven with various kinds of meta-logics. It's rather unfortunate that we don't know which logic is correct. The general consensus is that you should choose a logic you are most comfortable with, confident with, and (like statistical distributions) seems to fit your data.
When it comes to defining the beginning of human life, biology or not, I'm not comfortable or confident about using binary truth values, classical axioms, classical truth operators, or categorical thinking in general. I think it's more humanistic to be fuzzy.
Do you think you hold any beliefs which aren't true but aren't aware of their untruth? Or do you think your beliefs are the fount of truth?
I personally subscribe to a belief-revision model of thinking. In that sense I am constantly contradicting myself on various levels and meta-levels, constantly revising to make things
Do you think you hold any beliefs which aren't true but aren't aware of their untruth? Or do you think your beliefs are the fount of truth?
I personally subscribe to a belief-revision model of thinking. In that sense I am constantly contradicting myself on various levels and meta-levels, constantly revising to make things better. Over time you gain more information, but also organize the junk. I'm sure there are tons of things we all get really horribly wrong, probably much more than we get perfectly right. All we can do is our best.
you seem to think that an individual's beliefs control whether something is true or not for them - at least in some cases (like whether the unborn are human beings).
I think people tend to attach themselves to things (especially ideas and ways of thinking). I don't know if I would call that psychological attachment "belief" or "truth", but it's not something I trust very much in others.
Ideas, claims, arguments, logics, and pretty much everything is uncertain on a foundational level. We need to move past this ignorant period in history where you can't protect young humans and I can't protect grown women.
I encourage you to stop misusing our tools and start working to find a better solution.
How can't you protect grown women?
This is like the 3rd or 4th time in this comment thread that you've said something odd like this regarding women without any reasoning or explanation to what you're talking about. Like when you accused Scott of wanting to "categorically equate women with criminals." Those kinds of weird assertions show that your not really practicing your own "logic" all that well.
I don't see how you can claim I'm "misusing" my tools based on your arguments.
How can you if you believe that "The problem is that truth can be defined in too many ways. One can never be sure that the justification is correct. This is where it becomes a personal thing."
Who are you to judge that I'm misusing my tools if truth is a personal thing?
Is it true that I'm misusing my tools? If yes, then you've just contradicted your whole way of thinking. If no, then why are you claiming I am?
How can we find a better solution if truth is a "personal thing?" What's the better solution if everyone disagrees about the solution?
Do you see how your position completely prevents you from making the judgments/assertions you're making?
This is like the 3rd or 4th time in this comment thread that you've said something odd like this regarding women without any reasoning or explanation to what you're talking about. Like when you accused Scott of wanting to "categorically equate women with criminals." Those kinds of weird assertions show that your not really practicing your own "logic" all that well.
I'm going to use informal logic to show my thought process, but if it gets complicated I can try to clarify my thought process for you.
S1: "Natural conception via two parents is a sufficient condition for the start of human life."
P1: "Any organism born of two humans is human."
S1 + P1 -> I1
I1: "Scott advanced a categorical argument to show that the unborn are human."
S2: "Will you join me in supporting legal restrictions on abortions done for socioeconomic reasons ..."
S2 -> M1
M1: "Scott suggests that any human being, categorically defined in P1, require legal protection"
I1 + M1 -> I2
I2: "For some cases, Scott uses a categorical argument to support legal restrictions against women having abortions."
I2 ~> I3
I3: "Scott uses a categorical argument to support criminalizing abortions regardless of the socioeconomic status of the women or the developmental status of a fetus."
I3 -> I4
I4: "In cases of abortion, Scott categorically equates women with criminals."
I don't see how you can claim I'm "misusing" my tools based on your arguments.
Your tool is logic - here are some examples of misuse:
Scott said: "A potnential X must be an actual Y."
Jivin said: "Human being is a biological term while "person" is more of a philosophical term."
Scott said: "We don't for a moment question your humanity, only your logic."
Scott said: "...I choose to define all of your alleged rules of logic subjectively, according to my own tastes."
Scott said: "...I would concede the debate if Nadine could demonstrate, using good scientific reasoning..."
Scott said: "So, is your position true? If so,it appears there is universal logic." (suggesting that there is)
Jivin said: "The fact that you still don't get this, signals to me that your logic (whichever form you're using) is a little shaky"
All of these comments suggest that your side has enough expertise to call other people illogical, and yet your side rests on a poor logical foundation. The entirety of your argument rests on logical axioms which you refuse to define and refuse to defend.
Your position is nothing more than "proving by showing a picture" until it can explain:
1. Why human beings are so crisply disconnected from the rest of the universe that they can be always be defined in an all-or-nothing fashion.
2. Why it is necessary to define human beings with biology instead of other sciences.
3. Why your biological theory is unequivocally superior to other biological theories of classification.
How can you if you believe that "The problem is that truth can be defined in too many ways. One can never be sure that the justification is correct. This is where it becomes a personal thing."
Steven said: "The two examples are by no means comprehensive. I'm pretty sure there is an uncountably infinite number of truth value sets you could make, if you wanted."
Can I help your understanding by explaining this differently? The notion of truth value is abstract, and belongs to pure mathematics and logic. I can see why it might be hard to swallow.
How can we find a better solution if truth is a "personal thing?" What's the better solution if everyone disagrees about the solution?
Sometimes, even though we all arrive at beliefs independently, people do agree with each other on a wide scale. I am optimistic that new solutions to abortion can be agreed upon, not the ones that your side and the pro-choice side are currently advocating. It's clear that only a few people agree with your argument, and it's such a weak argument that it's probably not worth pursuing. Realistically, what can you hope for? 50% agreement? Not worth it.
Do you see how your position completely prevents you from making the judgments/assertions you're making?
Different situations call for different kinds of reasoning. Different logics have different truths, they also have different inf
Different situations call for different kinds of reasoning. Different logics have different truths, they also have different inference rules and higher-level principles. Logic is a tool for understanding, and is a tool for communication (with those who can receive it). I'm not prevented making judgements/assertations - in fact, I have more languages and tools at my disposal for making judgements/assertions. Accepting an arbitrary definition as the only correct one deprives us of meaningful choice. When faced with the poor thinking alternative you learned in school, which embraces non-sequiturs such as:
"If Ken Griffey Jr. finally gets his 600th home run, then fertilization brings about a new human life."
and
"A human sperm on a collision course with a human egg is a sufficient condition for the start of human life"
I'll stick with pluralism, thanks.
Steven,
One more comment from me just to examine your flawed attempt at logic.
I2: "For some cases, Scott uses a categorical argument to support legal restrictions against women having abortions."
I2 ~> I3
I3: "Scott uses a categorical argument to support criminalizing abortions regardless of the socioeconomic status of the women or the developmental status of a fetus."
I3 -> I4
I4: "In cases of abortion, Scott categorically equates women with criminals."
This isn't logic at all. It's you taking statements from Scott (that the unborn are human and deserve legal protection) and inferring things that don't necessarily follow. Providing legal protection to the unborn by criminalizing abortion doesn't necessarily lead to equating women with criminals. For example, before Roe v. Wade, numerous states criminalized abortion but women weren't equated with criminals or even punished for having abortions, abortionists were. But then again, you thought Scott's and Bmmg's comments about your poor assertion were ad homs so I guess I shouldn't expect your "logic" to work very well.
You can continue to stick with your pluralism but as you showed in your last comments, you have absolutely no grounding to judge my actions, ask me to change my position or to find the best solution (why is the best solution a solution which people can agree on?). If truth is personal (as you claim it is) - you can't judge "my truth." You can't reasonably claim I'm misusing my tools if you think about truth the way you claim you do.
Informal logic consists of the loosely connected inferences I made, not some formal logic. I left out many implicit premises and failed to adequately choose my words in many cases for the sake of time. I made the disclaimer that I was using informal logic. But rather than seeking clarification, you choose to attack my flawed attempt at logic. I know that wasn't logic. Do you know what you're talking about at all?
Providing legal protection to the unborn by criminalizing abortion doesn't necessarily lead to equating women with criminals.
Are you saying that Scott is only opposed to abortionists, or does he think that the women are at all responsible? You know full well that drugs are readily available that will abort an embryo for you. Coat hangers do just as well. It seems the women are just as suspect as the abortionists. But maybe Scott is cool with that; I'm suspecting not. If so, then I stand corrected.
Allow me to rephrase in light of the new information.
"Scott equates abortionists with criminals, even if the woman with the child is the abortionist."
If truth is personal (as you claim it is) - you can't judge "my truth." You can't reasonably claim I'm misusing my tools if you think about truth the way you claim you do.
Your limited understanding of logic and truth is certainly subject to criticism. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Classical logic is your hammer, the problem of human definition is your nail. That is how "your truth" appears to me, and I am certainly free to judge it with all the logics and non-logics that I choose.
Correction:
"In cases of abortion, Scott categorically equates abortionists with criminals, even if the woman with the embryo or fetus is the abortionist."
Commenting by HaloScan
