Posted on 06/30/2015 11:20:24 PM PDT by kathsua
Logic means nothing to these people. Laws mean nothing to these people. Religion means nothing to these people. These monsters will continue to murder their young. Only naked force will stop them.
Agree with you 100%. However, the IF in my post refers to the answer to: “would you treat any vegetable, animal or mineral in such a manner”.
If by that you mean Roe v. Wade, then the court got it wrong.
Thank you.
Firstly, the Continuum Fallacy isn't even a formal fallacy of either deduction or induction (which is funny, since much of what is fallacious in deduction is considered correct for induction). It is only listed as an informal fallacy because it fails to perfectly establish the falsehood of a contrary position. Like all informal fallacies, it is actually logically sound and its products argumentatively valid, if unpersuasive. If Tim knew this and knew the difference, he would probably not have written this article (notice how I used the word "probably", that suggests "induction", Tim).
Secondly, he incorrectly identifies the argument. The pro-lifer who challenges a pro-abortionist to explain and defend an arbitrary moment of transition into being is highlighting the moral uncertainty of abortion. It allows us to dust off philosophy's third-favorite object of thought experiment, the killer box-with-a-big-red-button, and ask one of Baal's neophytes if he or she is willing to MAYBE take a life. Since they are all still operating under the necessity of deception, they will forced to modify their position with feigned concern for innocent life.
And it is this strategic retreat which draws attention to this writer's third big mistake; he incorrectly identifies the agency of fallacy. The pro-abortion position requires staking out an indefensible position, agrumentively speaking. The pro-abort crowd find themselves having to either claim that a fully developed and clearly living child comes very suddenly into existence at just the moment that a previously unimportant mass passes beyond boundary of the mother's body, or else admit that there is no compelling moral concern about killing a child outright. Both positions are ludicrous and scandalous, but there are also intuitively wrong and, more importantly, they may serve as the premises of further argument aimed at eroding the moral support for their agenda. But according to Tim, pointing out the fallacy of the other side is somehow, itself, a fallacy.
BEST ANSWER
Not at all. Terry was brain damaged, not brain dead. Her brain was still acting as the master controller of her body, and she was somewhat aware. I think what was done to her is horrific.
When people become brain dead, their brain literally is a dead piece of flesh in their head. It receives no blood, it emits no electrical or chemical signals--it might as well be a lump of inert clay in the head. The person is pronounced dead when it is determined that brain death has occurred.
Gratuitous assertion. Question-begging.
It is hardly gratuitous. When brain death occurs, the person is pronounced dead. The heart can keep beating for a while, since it is not directly controlled by the brain, but it will stop beating shortly after artificial respiration is stopped. The other organ systems in the body shut down when brain death occurs, regardless of artificial respiration.
My reasoning is that if cessation of brain activity is the moment of death, then a person should be considered to exist as a person when observable brain activity takes place. When the brain--even a tiny embryonic brain--is active, the person is aware. The brain formation process occurs between weeks 2 and 5 after contraception. Once the brain is formed, brain development continues until about age 25.
yada, yada, yada....
Put it this way: if more people understood that brain death is NOT a coma or vegetative state or whatever else a brain-damaged state is called, then it would have been far more difficult for Terry’s “husband” to get away with murdering her.
The media purposely obfuscates the definitions of brain death, coma, etc., because they want people to think there is no difference between killing a comatose person and removing a brain-dead deceased person from a respirator. We all know the major media is pro-death.
One of the reasons I try to educate people on that point is to prevent more murders of innocent people like Terry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.