Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Legally it is. What else is anyone supposed to say?

No, not the "legal" dodge. You're supposed to say what YOU believe is the truth. Is it murder, yes or no.

Simple question: pick one.

Immanuel Can wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Legally it is. What else is anyone supposed to say?

No, not the "legal" dodge. You're supposed to say what YOU believe is the truth. Is it murder, yes or no.

Simple question: pick one.

I don't 'believe' anything. Harbal has already pointed out that murder is a legal term. Which part of that don't you understand? And why do you refuse to answer my question regarding IVF? It's an obvious question to ask, and easy to answer.

sthitapragya wrote:There is no such thing as justification of contemplation of murder. You just made that up.

Well, sad to say, you're wrong again. There is the necessity of justification for any action when we consider its moral standing, but especially when it issues in death. You can't just go around killing people (or "terminating pregnancies"} without showing the moral justification of your killing.

As for me, I'm not killing anyone, nor endorsing it. So it's all on you now.

Immanuel Can wrote: You're right. My opinion doesn't matter. Now. let's see what God thinks...And let's see how that works out for everybody who has perpetrated abortion. Or, better, let's get this right and repent now, so the Ultimate Judge does not come in and rule on this one. And if you care about the women in question, or their abortion doctors, that's what you should want too.

In which case, you are just worried about your God's wrath. You are not trying to protect children. Your whole objection to abortion is because you think your God is against it.

No, I'm not worried about God's wrath. I'm worried for you.
Human lives do not belong to you or me, or to "women"; they belong to God. Those who take them do not answer to me.

"Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them," the report said. "He didn’t call it that. He called it 'ensuring fetal demise.' The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord."

My question to you is simple: was what Gosnell did murder? Yes, or no. And we'll go from there.

It is murder.

Thank you. Now, I'll take note of your question and get to it eventually. But we're not finished with my line of questioning yet. Let me summarize: so far we have the following answers:

You: "It is murder."
Hobbes also says it is.
Veggie Tales refuses to answer. I guess we just have to ignore him. (No loss...he has no moral perspective on what you, I, and Hobbes can clearly recognize as murder, so he can't give us any light.)

We have concluded that infanticide is murder.

Next question: Is it murder if the child has just been born and, say, the umbilical cord has just been severed...the child is fully viable and independent of the mother? In that state, Gosnell then killed them anyway. Is such killing also murder? Yes or no?

Immanuel Can wrote:There is the necessity of justification for any action when we consider its moral standing, but especially when it issues in death. You can't just go around killing people (or "terminating pregnancies"} without showing the moral justification of your killing.

As for me, I'm not killing anyone, nor endorsing it. So it's all on you now.

Sorry. There is no necessity to justify anything to anybody unless it is required by law. The only justification one needs to do is to oneself. And if I don't think aborting a fetus is murder, I have nothing to justify. You might think you deserve some justification for my thoughts. But that is your opinion. I have no reason nor compulsion to justify it to you.

Immanuel Can wrote:
No, I'm not worried about God's wrath. I'm worried for you.
Human lives do not belong to you or me, or to "women"; they belong to God. Those who take them do not answer to me.

Well, then this whole thing is irrelevant isn't it? Whatever you might think, ultimately it is in God's hands. It could very well turn out that I am right and you are wrong and you could be judged and I don't. This is God. You cannot be absolutely certain that you are interpreting what he said right. Also, don't worry about me because I have met a lot of people in my life who threaten to do things in the future. I have never bothered about these threats because a threat in the future implies an inability to do anything to me right now. If God is incapable of stopping me right now, I am quite sure he is incapable of doing anything to me in the future.

Immanuel Can wrote:Next question: Is it murder if the child has just been born and, say, the umbilical cord has just been severed...the child is fully viable and independent of the mother? In that state, Gosnell then killed them anyway. Is such killing also murder? Yes or no?

First of all, this question reeks of condescension. It is an offensive question to ask because it implies that you think so little of us that you actually believe that we will say this is not murder. IF that is what you think of me, consider this discussion over. Don't ask such ridiculous questions the answers to which are obvious. Ask the one where the doubt starts.

And also, first answer my question: Does God commit murder if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to a genetic condition?

Was what Gosnell did murder ?
That depends on whether he dealt with an alive foetus or with a born baby with life, i.e. a person.
For an alive foetus it is not murder. For a baby that has come to life, I consider that murder.

Immanuel Can wrote: Human lives do not belong to you or me, or to "women"; they belong to God. Those who take them do not answer to me.

Finally. Now cut the crap. Stick your superstitious garbage up your disingenuous arse.

from Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:58 pm, in where he wrote:

No, I'm not worried about God's wrath. I'm worried for you.
Human lives do not belong to you or me, or to "women"; they belong to God. Those who take them do not answer to me.

Immanuel, like any of us, you are free to believe and discuss what you like but you may agree that science, while based on an assumption or on a belief, must be confirmed by factual observations to prove the point.

Immanuel Can wrote:You're right. My opinion doesn't matter. Now. let's see what God thinks...And let's see how that works out for everybody who has perpetrated abortion.

So what does God actually say on the matter?
I'm interested in your view of the mechanics. The process that leads to life starts when a spermatozoon fuses with the nucleus of an ovum. From what I gather, you believe that god, at this point, introduces the soul. In the bible it says:

The author of Gen 2.7 wrote:And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So do we take your word, or what is considered by some to be the word of god?

I think you're all wrong for having children in the first place. But that's just me.

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Next question: Is it murder if the child has just been born and, say, the umbilical cord has just been severed...the child is fully viable and independent of the mother? In that state, Gosnell then killed them anyway. Is such killing also murder? Yes or no?

First of all, this question reeks of condescension. It is an offensive question to ask because it implies that you think so little of us that you actually believe that we will say this is not murder. IF that is what you think of me, consider this discussion over. Don't ask such ridiculous questions the answers to which are obvious. Ask the one where the doubt starts.

You've got my intention completely wrong. That's the danger of boards like this: no one can hear tone. No condescension intended at all: I asked this question because I consider it unreasonable to presume what your answer will be without letting you speak for yourself. It would have been rude of me to do otherwise, I think.

But I see what your answer is: it's "Yes, it's murder." In fact, you seem quite adamant on the point. So let us do as you suggest, and move one step further.

In places where third-trimester abortions are allowed, (such as in Canada) the procedure is exactly the same as Gosnell's, except the baby is only brought part way out of the birth canal, and THEN has the scissors inserted and his spine snipped. Only after this has been done are the brains vacuumed out and the body removed from the birth canal.

Is this murder: yes or no?

Ferdi wrote: Immanuel, like any of us, you are free to believe and discuss what you like but you may agree that science, while based on an assumption or on a belief, must be confirmed by factual observations to prove the point.

Of course. But there's a problem with your standard when you try to apply it to issues like, say, the origin of the universe or the origins of life: there were, by definition, no "factual observations" made at the time, no scientific observers at work, and no data gathered at the time. So we are all thrown back inductions made based on present evidence.

Likewise the future: I think God will judge, and perhaps you think not: but we can only draw on present evidence to support our cases, because there are no empirical instruments for gathering data on the future...not without a time machine.

Consequently, I don't expect you to just grant my view that God will Judge: but I think it quite reasonable to expect you to believe that I believe it, and so understand it as a description of my true motives in discussing this topic.

If you can get that far, we're good.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Next question: Is it murder if the child has just been born and, say, the umbilical cord has just been severed...the child is fully viable and independent of the mother? In that state, Gosnell then killed them anyway. Is such killing also murder? Yes or no?

First of all, this question reeks of condescension. It is an offensive question to ask because it implies that you think so little of us that you actually believe that we will say this is not murder. IF that is what you think of me, consider this discussion over. Don't ask such ridiculous questions the answers to which are obvious. Ask the one where the doubt starts.

You've got my intention completely wrong. That's the danger of boards like this: no one can hear tone. No condescension intended at all: I asked this question because I consider it unreasonable to presume what your answer will be without letting you speak for yourself. It would have been rude of me to do otherwise, I think.

But I see what your answer is: it's "Yes, it's murder." In fact, you seem quite adamant on the point. So let us do as you suggest, and move one step further.

In places where third-trimester abortions are allowed, (such as in Canada) the procedure is exactly the same as Gosnell's, except the baby is only brought part way out of the birth canal, and THEN has the scissors inserted and his spine snipped. Only after this has been done are the brains vacuumed out and the body removed from the birth canal.

Is this murder: yes or no?

First, I need you to answer my question.

sthitapragya wrote: First, I need you to answer my question.

Gladly. I'll come back to it in timely fashion.

However, right now, I'm developing an argument. I'll get to your question as soon as I'm finished.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: First, I need you to answer my question.

Gladly. I'll come back to it in timely fashion.

However, right now, I'm developing an argument. I'll get to your question as soon as I'm finished.

Sorry, but My question is directly related to your question. So you will have to answer before I can answer.

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: First, I need you to answer my question.

Gladly. I'll come back to it in timely fashion.

However, right now, I'm developing an argument. I'll get to your question as soon as I'm finished.

Sorry, but My question is directly related to your question. So you will have to answer before I can answer.

He never answers anything. And he's already admitted that he doesn't give a shit about embryos, that he's motivated only by self-serving religious misogyny. He's just a smug, controlling, woman-hating arsehole. He's against legal abortion at any stage, so I wonder why he's now only harping on about late term inductions. He's probably using a 'How to deal with pesky pro-choicers' kristian website. Number one must be, 'Never answer any question directly, but if you must, respond only with another question, then claim that you will only 'answer' when they have given an 'answer' that you feel supports your own rhetorical question'.