The Philosophy Now Forum

Hidden premise there, Gary. You gotta watch em. That fantastic tirade would be true if a clump of cells was a babe.

It's got superb ethos. The audience is drawn into a tragic story about failed states enabling irresponsible mothers to be permiscuous while innocent babes are sucked without rebuke into a rubber vacuum tube and disposed of in a bin.

You're ready to go full Eric Rudolph after reading that. That's the rhetorical power of the sophist, Gary, and while IC is certainly no master he is very much a natural.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2026 12:41 am ...if a clump of cells was a babe.

Tell me what it is.
"Fetus" (Lat.) means the "bearing or hatching of young" or "pregnancy". (Dictionary.com)

So of what animal is this foetus a "the young"? With what is the woman "pregnant"? Is it a squirrel? Is it an emu? Is it a paramecium?

...a tragic story about failed states enabling irresponsible mothers to be permiscuous while innocent babes are sucked without rebuke into a rubber vacuum tube and disposed of in a bin.

That's it. That's exactly what's happening.

99% of all abortions are had by women whose given reason is convenience. Less than 1% even claim violence or violation of any kind. Every one of them has access to birth control methods, and all have the option of responsible reproduction or abstinence. So just whose fault is it, in 99% of the cases?

One thing for certain: it sure isn't the baby's fault. But the baby's going to pay the ultimate price for it.

Complicated question for the anti-abortionists.

You grow a female egg and some spermz outside of human bodies. You introduce the spermz to the egg, and conception follows shortly thereafter.

One week later, you terminate the babe.

Did you just commit a murder? If so, how? Nothing about the egg or spermz used was human or created by a human (they were grown in a tube), and the babe was neither attached to or residing in the moms when it was terminated.

Premises:

1. only god can create a human being.
2. A human being not created by a human being by natural birf is not a human being but a science project.

Conclusion: the product of our experiment is not human. Therefore, there is no 'abortion' when it is terminated.

Discuss.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2026 12:56 am Complicated question for the anti-abortionists.

An anti-abortionist has no ethical dilemmas at all.

It's never immoral to choose to allow a person to live. It's always immoral to murder one.

So the tough questions, indeed, all the ethical questions, belong to the pro-murder side. It's up to them to justify their murder.

You're drifting again, mate. I'm just tryna create a metaphysical problem with what constitutes a human being. Wasn't a success, though. More like a conversation some stoners might have while eating nachos at a bowling alley.

It wouldn't matter where conception happened or from what came the egg and the spermz. It'd still be a human, right?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2026 3:21 pm You're drifting again, mate.

Actually, you're drifting. We were discussing child murder (i.e. abortion).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2026 6:59 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2026 3:21 pm You're drifting again, mate.

Actually, you're drifting. We were discussing child murder (i.e. abortion).

He's not "drifting", he asked a valid question which you are ducking (the same question I tried to introduce many moths ago)

So let's be plain ....... are you saying that an UNATTACHED (not yet implanted) embryo is a "child"? This IS a valid question for those holding "human life begins at "conception" (when the egg is fertilized). Promethen75 is asking in an artificial fertilization situation but I was asking in the human biology context so I'll repeat that here.

There is a rather significant interval (at least several days to a week) between the time the egg has been fertilized and when it has successfully implanted itself in a location where it can continue as a developing fetus. There is a rather significant chance that it will not succeed in doing so, either failing to attach anywhere or attaching in a wrong place (in which case medical intervention required to save the woman's life, the fetus is doomed). In other words, more likely that not a fertilized egg will NOT result in a "child".

So........
a) Do you consider an UNATTACHED embryo a "child"
b) Would something that made it harder to attach itself be "murder" (AFAIK this is a theoretical question)

Scientists have observed a flash of light at conception, in animals and humans.

That sounds like a good starting point for form to grow.

If it doesn't, it wasn't meant to be.

God or human can cause that.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2026 5:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2026 6:59 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2026 3:21 pm You're drifting again, mate.

Actually, you're drifting. We were discussing child murder (i.e. abortion).

He's not "drifting", he asked a valid question which you are ducking (the same question I tried to introduce many moths ago)

Yeah, he is.

But we anti-abortionists are not even potentially guilty of anything unethical. "Letting live" is never a sin. However, murder is. So it's those who are trying to justify killing a child who have to give the answers. If you claim not to know when a child is fully viable, then just don't kill her, and you'll still be a good person. But if you murder her, and you're wrong...

Well, I wouldn't want to be you.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2026 5:59 pm Scientists have observed a flash of light at conception, in animals and humans.

That sounds like a good starting point for form to grow.

If it doesn't, it wasn't meant to be.

God or human can cause that.

UH, are you referring to the (rapid) release of zinc, altering the eggs's cell membrane to make it impermeable to a second sperm getting through? Has to be very fast as a second sperm is a disaster. I've never observed a human egg being fertilized but have watched sea urchin. Faster than you can blink. A chemical reaction that fast involves a significant energy release.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2026 6:08 pm But we anti-abortionists are not even potentially guilty of anything unethical. "Letting live" is never a sin.

DUCKING

Letting it live (unimplanted) is letting it die. The unimplanted embryo will continue developing until its reserves have become exhausted and then die.

LIFEBOAT --- a group of persons are in a lifeboat . There is a person a distance away. Are they killing by not rowing over to pull the person into the lifeboat? Discuss.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 12:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2026 6:08 pm But we anti-abortionists are not even potentially guilty of anything unethical. "Letting live" is never a sin.

DUCKING

No, it's called "burden of proof." It's on you, chum. And I'm not lifting it for you.

You want to allow the killing of babies (Lat. fetus = offspring, in this case, human).

I don't want to allow the killing of any babies.

Justify your approval of killing of babies.

Immanuel Can to MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 12:53 am You want to allow the killing of babies (Lat. fetus = offspring, in this case, human).

You calling a fetus a 'baby' or a 'child' is dishonest and distorted so that, apparently, you can shriek in horror as if you are so righteous to be doing so.

'Human development progresses through several stages: zygote, embryo, fetus, and newborn.'

'A fetus becomes a baby at birth, when it begins independent life outside the womb.'

'A fetus refers to the developing human from roughly the 9th week of gestation until birth. During this stage, the organs and body systems are forming and maturing, but the fetus is not yet capable of independent survival outside the womb without medical support. In contrast, a baby is a human infant from birth up to about one year of age, fully developed and considered a separate individual from the mother.'

These are the developmental stages whether the process is natural or artificially manipulated. You don't need to keep lying about it. Talk about it in truthful terms.

You're talking to someone who believes there are 'souls' in bodies... that's why he holds his position. So, explaining the stages of human development is a waste of time.

Abortion would only be inhumane if the aborted cells were capable of feeling pain and existential despair. Because those cells have neither a nervous system or a copy of Being and Nothingness, their disposal can not be considered inhumane.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 7:31 am

Immanuel Can to MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 12:53 am You want to allow the killing of babies (Lat. fetus = offspring, in this case, human).

You calling a fetus a 'baby' or a 'child' is dishonest

Actually, as I showed, it's literal. "Fetus" is the Latin word meaning "offspring." And in this case, it's clearly the "offspring" of a human being.

So if you prefer the word "fetus," use it. Nobody will stop you. But you're saying "offspring of a human being," which refers to exactly the same entity as "baby," whether you realize that or not.

However, no person who has ever had or encouraged an abortion will ever admit that, of course. To do so would be to admit to herself that she had done the wickedest thing a human being can do. Not believing in God, she will assume there could never be forgiveness and healing for such a heinous act. That's too much for the human conscience to bear.

So no abortionist or victim of an abortionist is going to use honest words. It's too painful for them to admit what they've done. So to their consciences, "fetus" sounds sterile and harmless -- even though it means exactly the thing they fear it means.

The price of denial is living in a delusion, all the while being gnawed at by incurable subconscious guilt. In this case, it's a price most seem very glad to pay.