The Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 8:23 am ...their disposal can not be considered inhumane.

But since you also have indicated that you believe that the "disposal" of living adults, so long as they be anti-Communists, is warranted, I'm not sure how much your permission in the matter of life and death can be taken seriously.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 12:53 am
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.

Justify that an UNATTACHED embryo is a "baby" < human embryos spend a significant amount of time from fertilization to attachment/implantation >
Justify that an embryo attached improperly (wrong place) is a "baby".

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 2:27 pm Justify that an embryo attached improperly (wrong place) is a "baby".

I'll tell you what I'll do for you. If you agree that the abortions that are done for convenience are murder, I'll discuss with you any liminal cases you want. In fact, I'm eager and ready to do so.

Do you admit that the 99% of abortion cases that are for convenience, not for medical or criminal reasons, are evil?

If you won't, then it's transparent what you're doing: you don't care about murder. And you don't care about ectopic pregnancy sufferers, or their babies. Rather, you're trying to exploit a small subsection of the 1%, those who we might consider true victims, in order to justify the murders.

So now we'll see your hand, I guess.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 2:37 pm And you don't care about ectopic pregnancy sufferers, or their babies.

Rather, you're trying to exploit a small subsection of the 1%, those who we might consider true victims, in order to justify the murders.

So you ARE considering misattached embryos "babies" << that's what an ectopic pregnancy is, an embryo attached where it cannot survive >>

So how about unattached embryos?
Note that ALL BABIES start out as unattached embryos, fertilization precedes implantation. Since you appear to consider the embryo that has attached ectopically to be "baby" perhaps you consider unattached embryos to be "babies" also. Do they have a "right of attachment"? Is preventing them from attaching murder? << that is essentially what an IUD is doing but I would wager that somewhere there is research on a chemical equivalent >>

LOOKING AHEAD
If X is person and Y is a person, is X not providing Y what Y needs to survive "murder"?

"I'm not sure how much your permission in the matter of life and death can be taken seriously"

My dear sir, a single capitalist is a much greater liability to society than a hundred unaborted Felishas. Hence, the sanction of the abortion of capitalists. Full term capitalists, even. Not just the fledgling moms 'n pops.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 4:04 pm "I'm not sure how much your permission in the matter of life and death can be taken seriously"
My dear sir, a single capitalist is a much greater liability to society...

Nothing of the kind. You're your own "liability." No "capitalist" has hurt you...you sold yourself cheap, apparently, and then were mad that you didn't get money for not producing more value. And to top it off, you stayed -- full of ressentiment and envy, but unwilling to leave the feeling of security the job gave you in order to earn more.

It's awfully hard to feel sorry for somebody who's entirely the author of his own misery.

So if you want to justify the murder of the person who is oppressing you...it's you.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 4:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 2:37 pm And you don't care about ectopic pregnancy sufferers, or their babies.

Rather, you're trying to exploit a small subsection of the 1%, those who we might consider true victims, in order to justify the murders.

So you ARE considering misattached embryos "babies"

I haven't said. I've only called them "ectopic pregnancies," which is the medical definition of what you're talking about. But I've said I'll happily discuss it once you declare your own rejection of the 99% of abortions that are clearly murders. Until then, don't bother to speculate. You won't know what I think, and I won't defend your hasty suppositions.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 1:28 pm 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.

You are literally avoiding the truth: a fetus does not become a baby or child until birth.

Is your position so dependent on dishonesty and distortion because it cannot stand otherwise?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 5:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 1:28 pm 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.

You are literally avoiding the truth.

Ha. It IS the truth. Look it up for yourself. "Fetus" means "offspring" or "progeny," and in this case, human progeny.

It sure ain't an emu or an ocelot that abortion is out to kill.

"You are literally avoiding the truth: a fetus does not become a baby or child until birth"

No, Lace, you can't go that far. You gotta mark the babe's beginnings around the time the nervous system begins being formed. That's the safest criteria. No way to aks the babe if he/she knows what's going on while it's in the womb, so we have to assume its identity begins at some point when it has primitive sensory experience. If it's capable of going "ouch," it's too late to abort the babe.

But six, seven, months in... no way. That's some straight Rob Zombie level shit right there. The cells become a babe a few months in. The babe is about as sophisticated and evolved as a fish at this stage, but it's a babe nonetheless.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 7:21 pm You gotta mark the babe's beginnings around the time the nervous system begins being formed. That's the safest criteria.

So...you're against abortions after the third or fourth week? Because that's when the neural tube is first formed, and your safe criterion is met. By week 5-7, the primary brain sections are all distinct. Final synapses and detectable electricity are operating around that point, too.

So you would hardly be for abortions at all, then? Certainly you would have to oppose second and third trimester ones, and certainly partial-birth ones...but also even late-first-trimester ones?

I doubt that many on either side will agree...but is that your view, really?

That's right. As soon as that fish lookin' spinal cord sprouts from that ugly little xenomorph lookin mass of tissue, it's hands off the kid.

The kid lives, and it's up to us to sort em out, get him a job, a good fam, etc.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 9:56 pm That's right. As soon as that fish lookin' spinal cord sprouts from that ugly little xenomorph lookin mass of tissue, it's hands off the kid.

The kid lives, and it's up to us to sort em out, get him a job, a good fam, etc.

Okay, so what you are is opposed to almost all abortion. You're just a little soft on the first few weeks, but after that, it's no go...and it's a "kid," not a "cluster of cells." I see.

Why is this so interesting? It's the most held position of any competent scientist. It's the brain, man. That's when and where the kid is uploaded into the Matrix. Any organ development prior to the nervous system is just the bigger clumping of cells. The magic happens when nerves get incased in a membrane of armor and the kiddo pushes the outside world back or pulls it in and consumes it, boldly declaring "I am an experiencer of a world and it is mine!"

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 7:17 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 5:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 1:28 pm 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.

You are literally avoiding the truth.

"Fetus" means "offspring" or "progeny," and in this case, human progeny.

That's NOT a baby or a child.

You've answered my question: Yes, your position is dependent on dishonesty and distortion because it cannot stand otherwise.