Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[Alexiev]

[
Most people would say a fetus becomes a baby at
No, most people do not say that. There is, in fact, no consensus at all on that question. And for a very good reason: nobody knows.

But this we do know: a baby is a baby at birth. How much before that, nobody can say with absolute certainty. What you call a "fetus" has its own heartbeat, circulatory system, brain waves, fingerprints, emotions and physiology long before your arbitrary butchering point. In fact, it has absolutely everything what you call a "baby" has.

There's no meaningful difference between a baby ten seconds before birth or ten seconds after. So it ain't birth that's the line. It cannot be. It must be earlier, and you don't know when it is. So you're happy to kill a child you know is a child; and inventing excuses that cannot be rationally defended does not make it any better.

There's no meaningful distinction between a 12 and 364 day-year-old and a13 year old either.

Right. In regard to their status as human beings, it's the same.


And a human "offspring" (fetus) is a baby. It's a nascent human being. It's a soul. It's a creature that belongs to God.

Secularists cannot see it that way. And that's the reason they think they can kill a human being for their own convenience.

Your belief that a fetus is a "a nascent human being. It's a soul. It's a creature that belongs to God..." is, at least, reasonable. Your notion that it is a baby is as ridiculous as if you claimed it was a teenager or an adult (as I have explained over and over again). Your failure to admit this is pathetic. Human offspring are only "babies" for a particular portion of their lives. They are not babies when they are fetuses, nor are they when they are 50-year-olds (despite their lovers' occasional use of the word).

[Immanuel Can]

I have never argued this. Note my wording: a secular person may have moral beliefs. However, a secular person cannot have any moral beliefs that are warranted by secularism. In other words, he can make up any number of beliefs for which he has no good reasons --including his belief that he has wronged somebody and can repent -- he cannot, however, explain to himself why what he did was actually and objectively wrong, or how he can be ultimately forgiven for sins completed in the past.

From the point of view of the secularist, your morality is just based on irrational superstition.

Yes, he obviously thinks that. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a secularist, would he? But he's just wrong.

Note however that you have totally ignored responding to "those who believe in a different deity than you do".

I have not. It's never been relevant, never a sensible objection to anything. Of course people can believe in wrong things; the secularist thinks the entire bunch is wrong, in fact. So you and I aren't even disagreeing that people think a lot of wrong things. We're just maybe questioning which one is right. The secularist thinks he knows there are no gods/God. The Christian insists there is.

It breaks down into a very simple choice, really. Here are the options:

1. There are no gods. (Atheism)
2. There are many gods. (Polytheism)
3. There is one God. (Monotheism)

Only one of the above can possibly be true. If there is any kind of God or gods at all, then Atheism is false. If there is a plurality or multiplicity of gods, then Polytheism is correct and Monotheism and Atheism are both false. If there is just one God, then Atheism and Polytheism are false. There is logically no other way things can be. And in all cases, note, the majority of people are wrong. It cannot be otherwise.

Moreover, the question, "What kind of God?" is a secondary one, one that can only be asked once this trilemma has been acknowledged and solved. For if there are no gods/no God, the question "What kind?" isn't even coherent.

So let there be a thousand tales about God, it will not matter one iota. Not more than one will be right, inasmuch as they contradict each other. So what does it matter to say, "Well, people believe all kinds of things"? So they do. What does it prove?

Not much. Just that people can be wrong. But we already knew that from the trilemma, didn't we?

[Immanuel Can]

There's no meaningful distinction between a 12 and 364 day-year-old and a13 year old either.

Right. In regard to their status as human beings, it's the same.


And a human "offspring" (fetus) is a baby. It's a nascent human being. It's a soul. It's a creature that belongs to God.

Secularists cannot see it that way. And that's the reason they think they can kill a human being for their own convenience.

Your belief that a fetus is a "a nascent human being. It's a soul. It's a creature that belongs to God..." is, at least, reasonable. Your notion that it is a baby is as ridiculous

It's your notion, too. For you called it a "fetus," which means "offspring." And of what is he/she the "offspring"?

Here's the problem. You don't like that the aborter in question ALREADY had a choice. It was the choice of whether to create a human life or not. And when that life was created by the aborter, the aborter does not afterward have a moral right to kill that child, pleading "It's my choice". That's wicked. That's murder. If you don't have the choice to murder an infant, you don't have the right to murder her ten seconds earlier.

[MikeNovack]

Your belief that a fetus is a "a nascent human being. It's a soul. It's a creature that belongs to God..." is, at least, reasonable. Your notion that it is a baby is as ridiculous as if you claimed it was a teenager or an adult (as I have explained over and over again). Your failure to admit this is pathetic. Human offspring are only "babies" for a particular portion of their lives. They are not babies when they are fetuses, nor are they when they are 50-year-olds (despite their lovers' occasional use of the word).

I disagree, because the terms we humans use for life stages are determined by culture and language. NOT the same in different cultures/subcultures.

I can accept that in his subculture, IC is not erring by conflating fetus with born baby. Where he is going wrong is to insist that this represents some truth that we not of his subculture can be expected to accept. Note however IC is consistent with this sort of error, not just with what is or is not a "baby".

[Alexiev]

It's your notion, too. For you called it a "fetus," which means "offspring." And of what is he/she the "offspring"?

Here's the problem. You don't like that the aborter in question ALREADY had a choice. It was the choice of whether to create a human life or not. And when that life was created by the aborter, the aborter does not afterward have a moral right to kill that child, pleading "It's my choice". That's wicked. That's murder. If you don't have the choice to murder an infant, you don't have the right to murder her ten seconds earlier.

None of this is relevant to my point about the proper use of the word "baby". "Adults" are offspring, "teenagers" are offspring. Are you really so dense that you don't understand?

[MikeNovack]

Here's the problem. You don't like that the aborter in question ALREADY had a choice. It was the choice of whether to create a human life or not. And when that life was created by the aborter, the aborter does not afterward have a moral right to kill that child, pleading "It's my choice". That's wicked. That's murder. If you don't have the choice to murder an infant, you don't have the right to murder her ten seconds earlier.

Oh, THAT what you believe? Really?

Then if the woman did NOT have a choice about getting pregnant (rape for example) aborting the fetus would not be murder. Yes or no (still would be murder) . If no, then please retract your "already had a choice" because you are saying this is not relevant.

[Immanuel Can]

It's your notion, too. For you called it a "fetus," which means "offspring." And of what is he/she the "offspring"?

Here's the problem. You don't like that the aborter in question ALREADY had a choice. It was the choice of whether to create a human life or not. And when that life was created by the aborter, the aborter does not afterward have a moral right to kill that child, pleading "It's my choice". That's wicked. That's murder. If you don't have the choice to murder an infant, you don't have the right to murder her ten seconds earlier.

None of this is relevant to my point about the proper use of the word "baby".

That's because your denying of status to near-birth babies is utterly arbitrary and rationally unjustified. They are babies, in every possible sense that the baby just birthed is. There is no difference in the act of killing one or killing the other, because there's nothing you can point to that can possibly justify making a difference.

[Immanuel Can]

Here's the problem. You don't like that the aborter in question ALREADY had a choice. It was the choice of whether to create a human life or not. And when that life was created by the aborter, the aborter does not afterward have a moral right to kill that child, pleading "It's my choice". That's wicked. That's murder. If you don't have the choice to murder an infant, you don't have the right to murder her ten seconds earlier.

Oh, THAT what you believe? Really?

Of course. Over 99% of the cases of abortion in the West are mere convenience, not medical necessity.

Then if the woman did NOT have a choice about getting pregnant (rape for example) aborting the fetus would not be murder.

Are you trying to suggest that if a baby is conceived in such a way, it becomes his/her fault? Is he/she less human due to that? If not, why would the moral status of the act be affected?

But if you admit that the 99% are immoral and evil, I'll be happy to discuss the other 1% with you on a per case basis. And if you won't, then you're not actually concerned with them, but rather, with merely cynically using the 1% to attempt to justify the 99% that are entirely without any such excuse.

How do you want to go?

[Alexiev]

None of this is relevant to my point about the proper use of the word "baby".

That's because your denying of status to near-birth babies is utterly arbitrary and rationally unjustified. They are babies, in every possible sense that the baby just birthed is. There is no difference in the act of killing one or killing the other, because there's nothing you can point to that can possibly justify making a difference.

Words are always defined arbitrarily. There's nothing about the sound of "baby" that requires we define it as we do. Nonetheless, we define it as a particular age group of animals (humans are not the only "babies"). You could equally say that there's no difference between a 12 and 364 day year-old and a teenager. So what? He's still not a teenager. Nor am I arguing about the morality of abortion. Instead, I am criticizing your misuse of the word "baby". After dozens of posts, you should be able to understand this if you are not a moron. If you cannot understand, we must conclude that you are either illiterate or stupid.

[Immanuel Can]

None of this is relevant to my point about the proper use of the word "baby".

That's because your denying of status to near-birth babies is utterly arbitrary and rationally unjustified. They are babies, in every possible sense that the baby just birthed is. There is no difference in the act of killing one or killing the other, because there's nothing you can point to that can possibly justify making a difference.

Words are always defined arbitrarily.

No, they actually aren't. They're defined by agreement of particular linguistic communities, not by mere individuals.

Nor am I arguing about the morality of abortion.

Understandably. There's actually nothing to argue. We all know what it is meant to do: to prevent a human being from being allowed a life. That's all it's ever wanted for, and all it ever stands to do. It's murder.

[Alexiev]

That's because your denying of status to near-birth babies is utterly arbitrary and rationally unjustified. They are babies, in every possible sense that the baby just birthed is. There is no difference in the act of killing one or killing the other, because there's nothing you can point to that can possibly justify making a difference.

Words are always defined arbitrarily.

No, they actually aren't. They're defined by agreement of particular linguistic communities, not by mere individuals.

Nor am I arguing about the morality of abortion.

Understandably. There's actually nothing to argue. We all know what it is meant to do: to prevent a human being from being allowed a life. That's all it's ever wanted for, and all it ever stands to do. It's murder.

Arbitrary: Based on random choice rather than any reason or system.

Apparently, you don't know what "baby" means, and you don't know what "arbitrary" means. Do you speak English?

[Immanuel Can]

Words are always defined arbitrarily.

No, they actually aren't. They're defined by agreement of particular linguistic communities, not by mere individuals.

Nor am I arguing about the morality of abortion.

Understandably. There's actually nothing to argue. We all know what it is meant to do: to prevent a human being from being allowed a life. That's all it's ever wanted for, and all it ever stands to do. It's murder.

Arbitrary: Based on random choice rather than any reason or system.

Bad definition. Try Oxford: adjective
adjective: arbitrary

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Language is a system. Its purpose is communication. So it is common property, not at your whim.

But it doesn't matter what words you will allow. A baby is a living human being, just as much as you are, ten seconds before and ten seconds after birth. That's morality, not wordplay.

[MikeNovack]

But if you admit that the 99% are immoral and evil, I'll be happy to discuss the other 1% with you on a per case basis. And if you won't, then you're not actually concerned with them, but rather, with merely cynically using the 1% to attempt to justify the 99% that are entirely without any such excuse.

How do you want to go?

Philosophy is about trying to understand our reasons for what we believe.

You said "because it was her choice". This has nothing to do with justified or not, 99% or 1%. This is about you saying "choice" was the REASON abortion is murder and I am calling you on it, because it appears to me NOT to be your reasons. Nor would it be no "cases by case" for that no choice being 1% << though I doubt quite that low, see the next paragraph >> Choice either is or is not the deciding factor youn claim it is.

I could also call you on how you worded that choice as "choice to conceive a child" because I disbelieve THAT is the choice you meant. Very few, probably under 1%, of abortions (excluding those advised for medical reasons) follow THAT choice. I rather suspect you meant "choice to have sex". And quite often not ACTUALLY choosing to have sex << choosing to drink at a party is not ACTUALLY choosing sex >>

And about your supposed only three possibilities, monotheism, polytheism, or atheism, you need to consider other possibilities (the atheist probably opposed to these others also). We don't usually consider pantheism quite the same as monotheism. And all sorts of animisms are possible (again, not exactly the same as polytheism, as these "spirits" might not be the equivalent of deities. Human "religious thought" is broader than you make it out to be.

[Alexiev]

No, they actually aren't. They're defined by agreement of particular linguistic communities, not by mere individuals.


Understandably. There's actually nothing to argue. We all know what it is meant to do: to prevent a human being from being allowed a life. That's all it's ever wanted for, and all it ever stands to do. It's murder.

Arbitrary: Based on random choice rather than any reason or system.

Bad definition. Try Oxford: adjective
adjective: arbitrary

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Language is a system. Its purpose is communication. So it is common property, not at your whim.

But it doesn't matter what words you will allow. A baby is a living human being, just as much as you are, ten seconds before and ten seconds after birth. That's morality, not wordplay.

You really are dense, Do you know what "or" means? Words are not defined by "personal whim" so that meaning of arbitrary is irrelevant here. That leaves the definition I quoted.

Of course you are trying to define "baby" by "personal whim". That's not how language works. Definitions are worthless if they are not shared.

[Immanuel Can]

But if you admit that the 99% are immoral and evil, I'll be happy to discuss the other 1% with you on a per case basis. And if you won't, then you're not actually concerned with them, but rather, with merely cynically using the 1% to attempt to justify the 99% that are entirely without any such excuse.

How do you want to go?

This is about you saying "choice" was the REASON abortion is murder

No, I did not say that.

I pointed out that 99% of the murders are by choice, and only slightly less than 1% without choice. And I promised to discuss the 1%, but only if you'd agree that the 1% does nothing to excuse the 99%, which are wicked by choice, not some sort of unfortunates or medical exceptions.

...no choice being 1% << though I doubt quite that low,

It is. Not even 1%, actually.

I rather suspect you meant "choice to have sex".

You suspect correctly.

My point is simply that murder is never a moral choice, but the choice whether or not to create a child has already been exercised in 99% of the cases.

And about your supposed only three possibilities, monotheism, polytheism, or atheism,

This is a separate discussion. Please put it in a different sequence of messages, so we don't overlap the two.

...you need to consider other possibilities (the atheist probably opposed to these others also).

No, those are all included in the other categories. For example, Pantheism is usually a form of "one god" thinking. It's a different "god" alright, but it's still only one.

...all sorts of animisms

They're Polytheisms. Anything with a multiplicity of "gods" is going to fit that.

But you do make a good point in one way: the concept "god," as found in the various Polytheisms, is not at all the same as the concept "God," meaning sole, supreme Being and First Cause. And in this, you point out the mistake that's so obvious in guys like Dawkins, who think that if they criticize Zeus, or Shiva or Odin they're criticizing the same concept as the Christian God, when really, they're just criticizing old mythical and animistic "gods," not anything a modern Monotheist is ever likely to believe in, and not even the same conception of what the word refers to.