Tuesday, April 4, 2006

Aborting Paul Manata’s Refutation

Ever since I posted my Pro-Fetal Ownership Argument, the reaction has been strong on both sides. For example, Aaron Kinney, who writes Kill the Afterlife, liked the argument so much that he posted it on his site. Conversely, many Christians expressed their extreme displeasure with the argument. Paul Manata, a prominent Christian blogger, was in the latter category. Over his Paul’s blog, as well as at Kill the Afterlife, I’ve engaged him and answered his numerous objections. None of this has helped, though; every time a refutation has been killed, he resurrects it anew. In this post, I will, once and for all, tackle most of Paul’s objections. By the end of this post, everyone should be convinced of my argument’s veracity and soundness.

Let’s look at my argument, to start:

Premise One: Individuals own their bodies, and everything that is growing within them.

Premise Two: Fetuses grow within the bodies of their mothers.

Conclusion One: Females own their fetuses.

Premise Three: Individuals may destroy that which they own.

Premise Four: Females own their fetuses.

Conclusion Two: Females may destroy their fetuses.

Here’s Paul’s first objection:

Frances says that since the baby is growing in the woman’s property then the baby is the woman’s property and she can murder the baby. Well, if I own a house then it is my property. If I have tenants growing inside my house (note: all humans are growing in some way or another) then on Frances’ logic I can kill my tenants since they are in my property, even though it is their rightful place.”

Clearly, this is a fallacious objection. I do not argue that since the baby is growing in the woman’s property it thereby becomes the woman’s property. Rather, I argue that since the fetus is growing inside the female’s body it thereby becomes the female’s property. My argument (and its stated premises) has nothing to do with growing in one’s property in general. It explicitly and exclusively deals with growing within an individual’s body. Paul’s extrapolations are his own, and I do not claim ownership of them.

Here’s Paul’s second objection, which is closely related:

“His argument also says that one person can own another person. That's the argument. But then he says he's opposed to slavery. This business about it only applying when people are in the womb is strictly ad hoc”

Once again, Manata is expanding my premises in order to erect a straw man that he can subsequently demolish. I never said, “One person can own another person.” I only argue that a female may own a fetus when said fetus is growing within the female’s body. While arguments can be justifiably narrowed, they cannot be expanded.

Here’s an analogy.

I am arguing that a female may own her fetus. Paul is extrapolating that one human may own any other human. That is like me arguing that a human may own a dog, and Paul extrapolating that a human may own any animal. Fetus is a subset of human, and dog is a subset of animal. Saying that a fetus may be owned does not necessarily imply all humans can be owned, just like saying a dog may be owned does not necessarily imply that all animals can be owned. Saying a fetus, but not necessarily all humans, can be property isn’t any more ad hoc than saying a dog, but not necessarily all animals, can be property.

If I had spoken in generalities, such as “Humans may own other humans,” then Paul could rightly deduce that humans may own fetuses. However, Paul cannot rightly do the opposite (make extrapolations), which is what he continually attempts.

Paul’s third objection:

“For example, I proved that George Steinbrenner owns his baseball players. He can tell them when to go to bed, what to eat, etc. He owns them. No, not in a slave era mentality, but he owns the Yankees, which is made up of many things, including Derek Jeter. Therefore, if a person can murder their own property then Steinbrenner can murder Derek Jeter.”

That, of course, is in response to my premise that individuals may destroy their property. What I’ve pointed out to Paul numerous times, to no benefit, is that Steinbrenner owns the Yankees in the sense that he owns the team and the franchise. He does not own the human beings that comprise the team. He might be able to enforce limited behavioral restrictions on the players, but those restrictions are borne out of the contract the players signed, not Steinbrenner’s ownership of them. For example, in my place of business, the boss compels me to dress a certain way and arrive at a certain time. He sometimes compels me to go on business trips. That the boss has some effect on my behavior does not mean the boss owns me as a piece of property.

I’ve often presented Paul with the ultimate argument against his contention that George Steinbrenner owns Derek Jeter the person: Steinbrenner would never allege that he does. All Steinbrenner claims to own is the Yankees team, which rightfully is his property. And, Steinbrenner has every right to destroy that property by disbanding the team and ending the franchise. Thus, my original premise stands. As long as G.S. may destroy the Yankees (the team, not the players themselves), my argument is solid. It’s also rather curious that Paul, who claims humans can never be owned, cites Steinbrenner’s personal ownership of Derek Jeter in order to attack my argument.

Finally, I want to address Paul’s assertion that my argument is irrelevant because it’s subjective, rather than objective.

He writes:

“Saying something is ‘objective to me’ is nonsense. Anyway, all you just said is that TO YOU they have rights. What we're asking if they have REAL, OBJECTIVE, UNIVERSAL, NON-ARBITRARY rights. A moral relativist cannot account for this.”

My argument is, in fact, objective. My views on morality, immorality, good, bad and rights are all objective. I didn’t reach my views at random: They are organic to me. True, there are no intrinsic rights or intrinsic morals, but things need not be intrinsic in order to be objective.

For example, since I am a huge movie fan, every year I compile a Top 10 list. That list is not randomly reached. Those are the 10 best films of the year to me, completely objectively. Similarly, my set of moral values and my views on rights are also objective, as they are not, in any way, arbitrary. They are the organic result of my mental processes.

Paul, however, is not satisfied with that idea of objective. To continue with the analogy, he wants the 10 best movies as determined in a vacuum, without anybody making a judgment. He wants the intrinsic 10 best list. However, such doesn’t exist. No movie is intrinsically good or intrinsically bad. No act is intrinsically moral or intrinsically immoral. No right is intrinsically possessed or intrinsically lacking. All of the above refer to value judgments, which must be made by an individual. Rights and morality exist within the minds of individuals; they do not exist in vacuums.

To conclude, I just want to mention Paul’s curious use of the word “illogic” in regard to pro-abortion arguments. As a Christian, Paul believes:

1. In a young earth.

2. That Jesus came back to life after 62 hours as a corpse.

3. That macroevolution is a myth and special creation is an actuality.

As a science-minded individual, those are the positions that seem illogical to me. When I told Paul this, he responded, “You can't just assert that some of my beliefs are illogical. Indeed, none of those beliefs defy laws of logic.” Well, what about the laws of nature? What about the conclusions of science? By Paul’s definition of logical, it wouldn’t be at all illogical to believe in unicorns or flying donkeys. After all, neither of those hypothetical creatures defies the laws of logic.

I welcome comments on this post from both sides of the fence, theist and atheist alike…as usual.

18 Comments:

Anonymous E-3 said...

Frances,

For example, since I am a huge movie fan, every year I compile a Top 10 list. That list is not randomly reached. Those are the 10 best films of the year to me, completely objectively. Similarly, my set of moral values and my views on rights are also objective, as they are not, in any way, arbitrary. They are the organic result of my mental processes.

Can you provide the definition of objective that you are using and how it applies to the movie analogy. I have to admit I am quite befuddled by the analogy.

Thanks!

11:11 PM EDT  
Blogger TheJollyNihilist said...

e-3:

If my Top 10 list were arbitrary, then I could just randomly pick 10 movies I saw during the year and have them comprise my list. However, that's not what I do. I reflect on all the movies I've seen and decide which were the 10 best. It's an objective decision. I objectively prefer Movie A to Movie B. Therefore, to me, Movie A is objectively better than Movie B. Similarly, to me, Vanilla ice cream is objectively better than Chocolate.

I view morality the same way. In my view, theft is wrong. Therefore, to me, theft is objectively wrong.

Value judgments do not exist in a vacuum; they must be made by individuals. They should always be prefaced with "to me." Whenever a value judgment is made (better or worse, good or bad, right or wrong), that's an objective decision. It's not intrinsic (Vanilla ice cream isn't intrinsically better than chocolate), but intrinsic values of that kind don't exist.

Everybody has their own objective moral standards, and everybody has their own objective favorite movies. That's all I'm saying. There's no intrinsic answer to morality questions and no intrinsic answer with respect to which movies are good/bad. That is to say, no answer carries over to everybody.

An opinion, that is the organic result of one's thought processes, is objective, to that person.

11:31 PM EDT  
Anonymous E-3 said...

Frances,

Arbitrary is different than objective. It seems as if you are using objective different than it is normally used. For example, in Websters the definitions the following definitions are listed: (not to say that we are limited to the common usages of words only)

Subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind; relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states.

Objective: of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind


The way I read what you are saying what you are actually speaking of is subjective not objective.

7:39 AM EDT  
Blogger TheJollyNihilist said...

OK, fair points. Allow me to clarify. I think the best place to start is by presenting my definitions of "subjective" and "objective."

Subjective: That which is true for me, but not necessarily true for anybody else.

Objective: That which is true for me, and necessarily is true for everybody else.

The statement, "To FrancestheMagnificent, Vanilla ice cream is better than Chocolate" is objective. No matter who makes that statement, it's true.

The statement, "To FrancestheMagnificent, theft is immoral" is objective. No matter who makes that statement, it's true.

Conversely, the statement, "Theft is immoral" is subjective. For some people it's true, for some people it's false.

6:55 PM EDT  
Anonymous Ellen1910 said...

Individuals own their bodies, and everything that is growing within them. FTM

I haven't read Manata's response to your argument which is based on this premise.

Presumably, Manata challenged the premise and pointed out that our democratic State disagrees. It has long claimed the power of military conscription (another word for slavery) and currently, claims the power to compel a woman carrying a viable fetus to bring it to term if that act will not endanger her life (another form of conscription). And inasmuch as it already claims those rights over our bodies, there is no obvious impediment to the State's conscripting the woman at an earlier time in her pregnancy.

I happen to approve the premise, personally, but it is arbitrary. And unless a majority of society agrees with it -- and in its absolutist formulation -- it has no special standing.

1:25 AM EDT  
Blogger Dr. Vito said...

Dear France,

How do you define a "fetus" within the parameters of your argument, as well as clearly define the exact moment of time in which this "fetus" makes the transition to "human being"? As many states in the U.S and countries elsewhere in the world permit partial-birth abortions, does this imply that the complete exit of a baby from a woman's vagina bequeath upon it the status of "human being"? If so, how would you classify me, someone who was born in a C-section? From the logical conclusions one can draw from your argument, I am simply an overgrown fetus that my own mother can terminate at her discretion. What about that one Pro-Life advocate who was a "botched abortion" that a nurse rescued? Can we kill her as non-human? And on that note, can I go around punching pregnant women in the stomach at no consequence (outside of normal assault, of course). Slave owners used all sorts of rationalizations to uphold the inhumanity they practiced, rationalizations centered around the inferiority of blacks--they were "sub-sets of humanity."

It's only a matter of time before contraception becomes so effective that pregnancy becomes exclusively a matter of choice, and abortion an arbitrary decision to renege on that decision. With abortion no longer a socio-economic "relief" (as slavery was becoming anyways) how do you think people in that day are going to look back on you and others thinking like you? It all comes down to rationalization and economics; to paraphrase of one of your favorite country's most "celebrated" nationals, you "like to have your cake and eat it too."

2:53 AM EDT  
Blogger Daniel said...

Dr Vito,

I think Frances made it clear that ownership ends when the fetus is no longer inside the female's body. He didn't specify that it had to come out of the vagina, rather than be delivered by C-section.

Also, note that he said that the woman's body is her own, and so you punching her belly, and hurting her fetus, is not okay for you, even though, since it's her body, she can do what she likes with it. That is, just because she has ownership of the fetus doesn't give you ownership of the fetus. You can't treat it as you like just because she owns it and has the ultimate say in its demise.

It seems you used two strawmen here.

7:17 AM EDT  
Blogger TheJollyNihilist said...

I haven't read Manata's response to your argument which is based on this premise.

Presumably, Manata challenged the premise and pointed out that our democratic State disagrees. It has long claimed the power of military conscription (another word for slavery) and currently, claims the power to compel a woman carrying a viable fetus to bring it to term if that act will not endanger her life (another form of conscription). And inasmuch as it already claims those rights over our bodies, there is no obvious impediment to the State's conscripting the woman at an earlier time in her pregnancy.

I happen to approve the premise, personally, but it is arbitrary. And unless a majority of society agrees with it -- and in its absolutist formulation -- it has no special standing.


I just wanted to point out that I'm not making a legal argument. Rights exist whether the State recognizes those rights or not. For example, I recognize a right to gay marriage and a right to die. The State currently ignores those rights. Thus, my argument is philosophical in nature, rather than political or legal.

How do you define a "fetus" within the parameters of your argument, as well as clearly define the exact moment of time in which this "fetus" makes the transition to "human being"? As many states in the U.S and countries elsewhere in the world permit partial-birth abortions, does this imply that the complete exit of a baby from a woman's vagina bequeath upon it the status of "human being"? If so, how would you classify me, someone who was born in a C-section? From the logical conclusions one can draw from your argument, I am simply an overgrown fetus that my own mother can terminate at her discretion. What about that one Pro-Life advocate who was a "botched abortion" that a nurse rescued? Can we kill her as non-human?

Call the fetus a human being at the moment of conception. I won't object. Humanity or lack thereof is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is equally applicable to a human and an encyclopedia.

Ownership ends when the fetus is no longer growing within the mother's body. Where it exits is irrelevant.

And on that note, can I go around punching pregnant women in the stomach at no consequence (outside of normal assault, of course). Slave owners used all sorts of rationalizations to uphold the inhumanity they practiced, rationalizations centered around the inferiority of blacks--they were "sub-sets of humanity."

You're missing a very important point: Humanity is irrelevant to my argument. Wholly irrelevant. So, conceivably, if you classify a fetus as a human, a man could be charged with murder for killing a mother's fetus while she was on her way to an abortion clinic to destroy her property.

It's only a matter of time before contraception becomes so effective that pregnancy becomes exclusively a matter of choice, and abortion an arbitrary decision to renege on that decision. With abortion no longer a socio-economic "relief" (as slavery was becoming anyways) how do you think people in that day are going to look back on you and others thinking like you? It all comes down to rationalization and economics; to paraphrase of one of your favorite country's most "celebrated" nationals, you "like to have your cake and eat it too."

I'm morally agnostic about abortion. My argument only speaks to property rights.

Welcome Brother Danny!!

1:24 AM EDT  
Blogger Paul Manata said...

The problem is that your arguments are arbitrary.

You've insulated them from any attack, but what that does is make them completely arbitrary.

So, let's see if you can *prove* premise 1 and 3?

Also, look at this argument. It's the same as yours:
Premise

One: Individuals own their property, and everything that is growing within them.


Premise Two: 8yr olds grow within the property of their mothers.


Conclusion One: Females own their 8 yr. olds.


Premise Three: Individuals may destroy that which they own.


Premise Four: Females own their 8 yr. olds.


Conclusion Two: Females may destroy their 8 yr. olds.


Now, deny P1 and refute yourself.

Also, here's another blunder:

Frances:I never said, “One person can own another person.” I only argue that a female may own a fetus when said fetus is growing within the female’s body. While arguments can be justifiably narrowed, they cannot be expanded. Here’s an analogy. I am arguing that a female may own her fetus. Paul is extrapolating that one human may own any other human. That is like me arguing that a human may own a dog, and Paul extrapolating that a human may own any animal.

Actually, since the fetus is a person then your argument is:

Some people may be owned by some perople.

Saying that a human may own a dog would be, if you're trying to not misrepresent me: Humans may own some dogs.

"Fetus is a subset of human, and dog is a subset of animal."

humans are a subset of humans?

Are we not animals, according to you?

So, humans are a sub set of animals as well.

Also, baby Mary is a species within the set of all humans.

Rin tin tin is a specis within the set of all dogs.

You don't even know how to interpret what i'm saying. you constantly make pro-choicers look dumb.


Anyway, I didn;t respond since I don;t check your hack blog on a regular basis.



And, bro-danny, since you claim to be pro-life for children after the first trimester, can I see your argument against Frances' view that children can be killed at any stage of development?

Do you have the guts to argue with an atheist? Or is toing party line more imprtant that good reasoning?

11:28 AM EDT  
Blogger TheJollyNihilist said...

The problem is that your arguments are arbitrary.

You've insulated them from any attack, but what that does is make them completely arbitrary.

So, let's see if you can *prove* premise 1 and 3?


You keep missing my point. We are speaking about issues for which there is NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH. Abortion is not objectively right, nor objectively wrong. The only “facts” with respect to the morality of abortion are facts like “To Paul, abortion is immoral” or “To FrancestheMagnificent, abortion is moral.” That’s why I brought up my Top 10 movie list analogy. There is NO objective Top 10 list. I have mine; you have yours. They are both equally valid, since there is no objective truth by which either can be judged. My premises are proven by the fact that I accept them. Therefore, the argument is valid for me. The fact that it’s not valid for you doesn’t change the fact that it is valid for me.

Also, look at this argument. It's the same as yours:
Premise

One: Individuals own their property, and everything that is growing within them.


Premise Two: 8yr olds grow within the property of their mothers.


Conclusion One: Females own their 8 yr. olds.


Premise Three: Individuals may destroy that which they own.


Premise Four: Females own their 8 yr. olds.


Conclusion Two: Females may destroy their 8 yr. olds.


Now, deny P1 and refute yourself.


That argument could be valid, assuming you find somebody who accepts all the premises. I reject the first premise of this argument; therefore, it’s not valid to me. But, my rejection of this argument has no bearing on my own argument. I accept my own first premise. I reject the first premise you offered; it’s substantially different than my own. But, as I said before, this argument you provided certainly could be valid if you find somebody who accepts every premise. When you’re talking about things that cannot be scientifically tested, it’s all a matter of opinion. There is no moral code that applies to everyone anymore than there’s a Top 10 movie list that applies to everyone.

Also, here's another blunder:

Frances: I never said, “One person can own another person.” I only argue that a female may own a fetus when said fetus is growing within the female’s body. While arguments can be justifiably narrowed, they cannot be expanded. Here’s an analogy. I am arguing that a female may own her fetus. Paul is extrapolating that one human may own any other human. That is like me arguing that a human may own a dog, and Paul extrapolating that a human may own any animal.

Actually, since the fetus is a person then your argument is:

Some people may be owned by some perople.


You are wrong again. My argument is NOT “Some people may be owned by some people.” Rather, my argument is, “A female may own a fetus when said fetus is growing within the female’s body.” As I said, you cannot generalize a narrow statement; you can only narrow a general statement.

"Fetus is a subset of human, and dog is a subset of animal."

humans are a subset of humans?


Why do you so adamantly refuse to use my own words? Fetuses are, indeed, a subset of human. Men are a subset of human. Women are a subset of human. College students are a subset of human. Retirees are a subset of human. And yes, fetuses are a subset of human. You cannot take statements made specifically about fetuses and broaden them to encompass all of humanity. You can narrow a general statement, but you cannot generalize a narrow statement.

Are we not animals, according to you?

So, humans are a sub set of animals as well.

Also, baby Mary is a species within the set of all humans.

Rin tin tin is a specis within the set of all dogs.


I really have no idea whatsoever what point you’re trying to make. So, instead of trying to guess, I’ll just repeat my point once more for emphasis.

My argument deals with very specific circumstances. Moreover, my argument deals with fetuses, and the location in which the grow. The statement, “A female owns her fetus” means nothing more than is explicitly stated. It implies absolutely nothing about human-human ownership in other situations. It cannot be interpreted to mean, “Some humans may own other humans.” Why not? That would be generalizing a narrow statement, which is logically impermissible. A statement about fetuses—a subset of humans—cannot be extrapolated into a statement about humans in general. Analogously, a statement about dogs—a subset of animals—cannot be extrapolated into a statement about animals in general.

Therefore, if you want to attack my argument (which seems silly, really, since it doesn’t apply to you, as you reject the premises), you must stick with my specific words, making no impermissible extrapolations.

7:56 PM EDT  
Blogger Paul Manata said...

you rejected my first premise and refuted yourself. You don;t even see this. Now *that's* funny!

You rejected that "a person ownes her property and that which grows in it."

By rejecting this you must, by the rule of subimplication, reject that a women ownes her body (since you've argued that her body is her property." You said, "I'm giving a property rights argument.").

You've been roasted, admit it.

11:36 AM EDT  
Blogger TheJollyNihilist said...

you rejected my first premise and refuted yourself. You don;t even see this. Now *that's* funny!

You rejected that "a person ownes her property and that which grows in it."

By rejecting this you must, by the rule of subimplication, reject that a women ownes her body (since you've argued that her body is her property." You said, "I'm giving a property rights argument.").

You've been roasted, admit it.


I will not "admit it" because I did no such thing.

You're correct: I rejected the premise that a person owns that which grows within his/her property.

HOWEVER

I did not accept the premise that a person does not own that which grows within his/her property.

Rather, I argue that, in some cases, people own that which grows within their property, and in some cases, people do not own that which grows within their property. It's a case-by-case thing. No generalization will cover it, so I reject all generalizations as false.

American homeowners may own animals is a false generalization. American homeowners may not own lions.

American homeowners may not own animals is also a false generalization. American homeowners may own dogs and cats.

In this analogy, both generalizations are false; one must look at things on a case-by-case basis. That's what you're refusing to do.

I'm making an argument analogous to dog ownership. You are trying to twist it into an argument analogous to animal ownership. It's not working.

6:52 PM EDT  
Blogger Paul Manata said...

"Rather, I argue that, in some cases, people own that which grows within their property, and in some cases, people do not own that which grows within their property."

duh, I know you do. That's why I said your argument is arbitrary.

Maybe you can deliante the objective standard you use to determine when someone ownes that which grows in their property and when they do not own that which grows in their property.

Next, maybe you could prove that people own their own bodies.

Oh yeah, you won't do this since you admit that your argument is based on your subjective opinion.

Once yhou do this, though, you've lost any rational right to disagree with my argument. All you can say is that you don't like Vanilla while I do.

All your argument is, is this: Women can have abortions because I *think* they can and they can in my *opinion.*

You didn't need to try and trick everyone with offering a argument using numbered premises. Just tell everyone that abortion is okay because you think it is.

thus the illogic of your position.

7:20 PM EDT  
Blogger TheJollyNihilist said...

duh, I know you do. That's why I said your argument is arbitrary.

Maybe you can deliante the objective standard you use to determine when someone ownes that which grows in their property and when they do not own that which grows in their property.

Next, maybe you could prove that people own their own bodies.

Oh yeah, you won't do this since you admit that your argument is based on your subjective opinion.

Once yhou do this, though, you've lost any rational right to disagree with my argument. All you can say is that you don't like Vanilla while I do.

All your argument is, is this: Women can have abortions because I *think* they can and they can in my *opinion.*


I find it very strange that you are trying to browbeat me into saying something that I readily admit. My argument does not prove abortion is objectively OK. My argument proves abortion is objectively OK to me. No argument proves abortion is objectively OK or objectively not OK, because morality as a concept is only coherent in the context of to me.

Let me use some analogies.

To me, 85 degrees is pleasant weather.

To me, Brokeback Mountain is an entertaining movie.

To me, Kentucky Fried Chicken is tasty.

To me, abortion is moral.

"Pleasant," "entertaining," "tasty," and "moral" are not intrinsic - they are opinions. No weather is intrinsically pleasant. Analogously, no act is intrinsically moral. As I said, these concepts are only coherent in the context of to me. Essentially, you are criticizing me for only giving my opinion about something that can only be dealt with in opinion.

You didn't need to try and trick everyone with offering a argument using numbered premises. Just tell everyone that abortion is okay because you think it is.

The formally arranged argument shows how I reached my opinion on this matter. It demonstrates that my opinion is far from arbitrary; rather, my pro-choice opinion is absolutely required by the premises in which I believe.

8:04 PM EDT  
Blogger Paul Manata said...

"My argument proves abortion is objectively OK to me."

Lol! Yeah, but you don't need an *argument* to announce your opinion.

I was saying that it was *objectively* wrong to have one. You can't refute that by saying that your *subjective* opinion on the matter is that it's not wrong.

So, come on over if you ever want to play the rason giving game. As it stands, Michael Jordon is on the court and all you're doing is sitting in the stands giving your *opinion* that you could beat him.

Stepping on the court is a different ball game, though.

So, you're a sit-in-the-stands defender of abortion. Yeah, that's really useful in the realm of ideas.

Hey, why don't you go to one of the rally's and tell all the women, "it's not *really* morally okay to have an abortion, but it is in my opinion!"

Lol.

Like I said, illogic.

2:29 AM EDT  
Blogger Paul Manata said...

"The formally arranged argument shows how I reached my opinion on this matter. It demonstrates that my opinion is far from arbitrary; rather, my pro-choice opinion is absolutely required by the premises in which I believe."

Oh, so the conclusion is absoutley *required.* So it's not an "opinion."

Also, I asked you to do some things, you've still refused:


Maybe you can deliante the objective standard you use to determine when someone ownes that which grows in their property and when they do not own that which grows in their property.

Next, maybe you could prove that people own their own bodies.


So, your argument has unsupported premises which are not obvious to me. It's *your job* to prove them. Otherwise you have a very weak and unsupported argument.

2:32 AM EDT  
Blogger TheJollyNihilist said...

Paul,

There seems to be a disconnect here. Let me make it very clear that I am a moral relativist (Today Aaron Kinney labeled me a nihilist, which might be more accurate). I do not believe objective morality exists. Therefore, I don't believe anything is objectively moral or objectively immoral. That being the case, the only moral arguments I recognize are moral arguments from opinion - because there are no universally applicable moral facts. So, it's silly to think I will debate you about the objective morality of abortion - there's no such thing.

Debating whether abortion is objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong is sort of like debating whether vanilla or chocolate is tastier. There's no right answer, only opinions and arguments from opinion.

And yes, my conclusion is required by my premises. Why? I accept all the premises as true (or, at least, true in my opinion). Accepting each premise, the conclusion must be accepted because the conclusion follows directly from the premises. If you don't accept the premises, you can rightfully deny the conclusion.

Then you can craft your own argument to support your pro-life opinion. In the end, it won't be any different than mine: It will simply be trying to prove chocolate is tastier than vanilla instead of my argument that vanilla is tastier. We won't get any closer to the truth of the issue because there is no truth to discover.

1:21 AM EDT  
Anonymous Smoke said...

Drugs are just bad, you should try to use Herbal Alternatives as a temporary replacement to loose the dependance!

12:57 PM EDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home