Posted on 08/24/2006 6:26:38 AM PDT by Pyro7480
There are many people who are simultaneously attached to the conservative position on some issues and the leftist, evil position on others.
What is fascinating to me is that, while their defense of their conservative positions may be intelligent and well-reasoned, when they begin to argue in defense of their leftist positions they start to argue like leftists, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This little screed: “Such rigid thinking is exactly whow the extreme Pro-Lifers attempt to hijack the Plan B debate as another form of abortion,” bereft of reason as it is, is a fine example of that. It seeks to skip over the central question, while discrediting opponents as “rigid” people who are trying to “highjack” something.
As G. K. Chesterton wrote, “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” A well-considered opinion held with justifiable confidence is not rigid, and calling it so is merely an attempt to escape the necessity for confronting it on its merits.
And what are we offered in its stead? This arrant nonsense: “There is ALWAYS a coherent argument for a different point of view.” In fact, arguments in support of falsehood always fall apart in the face of a sufficient application of fact and reason, and are not, therefore, coherent. One must fault the speaker for gullibility rather than malice, though, as he was doubtless spoon-fed that hogwash from an early age.
We then step in another steaming pile of assertion: “In this particular area of discussion, I'll ask you when does the life of a twin begin? Would you say an undivided zygote has two lives in it? I would say no.”
Note that we are offered no coherent argument in support of that proposition, despite the writer’s assurances that there is “always” a coherent argument for a different point of view. Neither are we offered a coherent argument for the proposition that an “undivided zygote” has less than one life in it. The principle that a zygote contains at least one life, therefore, stands unchallenged.
“What about when a zygote separates and then reforms into one? Is that two lives that then merge into one?”
There are a number of possibilities, none of which necessitates the conclusion that the zygote is not a living human being.
The writer would seem to be trying to make this argument:
1. Zygotes sometimes split then recombine into one.
2. If the original zygote had been living, it would have split into two lives.
3. These two separate lives would then recombine into one.
4. That is impossible.
5. Therefore, the original zygote was not living.
Seen this way, the fatal flaws are obvious.
Firstly, the writer fails to define the term “a life.” Is he using this term in its secular, scientific meaning, or is he waxing metaphysical? There is certainly no scientific reason that a zygote cannot split and recombine, as evidenced by the fact that, according to this writer, they do. Why is it impossible, then? Is he asserting that it is impossible for a soul to split in two then recombine? If so, I await his support for that assertion.
Further, he has failed to establish that, when a zygote splits, the soul splits with it. Perhaps, though, he will balk at the use of the word, “soul.” Perhaps he prefers some vague, fuzzy concept of “a life.” Doesn’t matter, though, because he does not show why that entity cannot divide and recombine.
“Again, I would say no.”
Since, however, you offer no coherent argument in support of your contention, what you would say is a matter of very marginal interest.
“a living human being cannot divide itself in two”
Not, perhaps, once he develops past the zygote stage. At that stage, apparently, a human being can divide. There are a number of things people can do at one stage, and not another. For instance, we can learn languages as a native speaker up to about the age of 10 or 12, then we lose that capability. Further, we can’t reproduce until puberty. Why don’t we just arbitrarily set puberty as the age at which a zygote becomes a human being? That would be as valid as any other point, other than conception.
Again, we are offered nothing more than an assertion, with no coherent argument supporting it.
“therefore”
No, sorry, you cannot proceed from a false premise to a valid conclusion. Back to the drawing board with you.
“Once it develops into an organism with human characteristics, then it is a living human being.”
You don’t consider a complete set of human DNA to be “human characteristics?” And yet you have the nerve to swan about impugning the intelligence of your betters? I would call that arrogance, except that would be to ascribe to it an unwarranted dignity.
Although you fail to offer – and in fact do not have – any coherent argument in support of your position, there is an extremely coherent argument against it.
It consists merely in reaching an agreement with one’s opponent regarding any point at which a baby is undeniably a human being, then going back a unit of time and asking for a coherent argument as to why it wasn’t a baby then. For instance, a baby is a baby a second after its birth, so why wasn’t it a baby a second before its birth? It was a baby at eight months, so why not at six? It was a baby at three months, so why not at one?
Eventually, you get back to the instant of conception. That is the first point at which it cannot be argued that a baby previously existed. Every argument that can be advanced for any subsequent point in time is easily shown to be fallacious. (My favorite point in these discussions is where I get to laugh and ask, “What, do you think the Blue Fairy appears, waves its magic wand, and turns the “fetus” into a real baby?”)
Reason would tell us that this issue turns on the question of whether Plan B does or does not cause the death of fertilized eggs – better known as “human beings,” or “babies.” The best information I have to date is that it does.
What we are left with, then, is the specter of a person who, faced with a firm adherence to the principle that killing innocent human beings is wrong, seeks to discredit it as “rigid.” I don’t think that requires any further comment.
Plan B will not end a pregnancy, and it is debatable whether it inhibits implantation.
You took a hell of a long time to get to this point... sheesh!
"You took a hell of a long time to get to this point"
How would you know? You obviously missed everything that led up to it.
"Plan B will not end a pregnancy, and it is debatable whether it inhibits implantation."
Preventing implantation *is* ending a pregnancy, and for some odd reason, whether Plan B prevents implantation only became "debatable" when it became the last-ditch fallback position of the baby killers.
No it isn't. And go ahead, think of me as a baby killer.
Make sure the pro-life side is soo pure and soo small.
"No it isn't."
Denial don't change a thang, podnuh. Life begins at conception.
"And go ahead, think of me as a baby killer."
Okey dokey.
"Make sure the pro-life side is soo pure and soo small."
If the pro-life side doesn't exclude baby killers, what's the point?
I didn't miss it... I just fell asleep in the middle of it.
"I didn't miss it... I just fell asleep in the middle of it."
That explains more than you intended.
From what I recall, he is opposed to the use and distribution of abortive drugs. Which stands in stark contrast to Bush and his klan.
Does he wish to outlaw them? And what about the Pill?
This is the Constitution Party guy, right?
We do know for sure, if someone doesn't aim the gun at their head, they won't be killed by the gun, even if they might die for another reason.
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.