So the Sorites paradox is being used here to demonstrate that I can one-by-one take away pieces of a person and at some point enough pieces have been taken such that it is no longer a person. I think the human brain peaks at around age 27, so maybe anyone older than 30 is far enough removed from their maximum "personhood" that we can no longer consider them human? Maybe anyone with an IQ below 100 is far enough removed from optimum personhood that they can no longer be considered human? I think we've been down these roads before.
I get that you don't like the use of the "Sorites paradox" argument against abortion. It is a paradox because the definition of heap is subjective and not well defined. I am curious if this is the best argument against abortion you are seeing and you are just wanting to see a better argument?
In the "bun in the oven" example above, the oven is not cooking another oven. And since the baker is not the oven but is able to decide whether or not to bake the cake, I assume this is a metaphor for God? Mixing the ingredients (DNA?) and placing the batter (Zygote?) into the oven (Uterus?)
But of course any metaphor scrutinized too closely will not hold up as it is limited in in the point it is trying to make. The bun in the oven is meant to promote the idea that a growing baby begins simply as ingredients, like a cake batter until the moment it becomes cake.
If it must be a food metaphor though, how about Amish friendship bread? The bread begets bread. If the starter mix is discarded, then the remaining line of bread that can be made from the starter is cut off. The mix itself contains "life" as it causes the combined ingredients to rise immediately. It takes time (about 10 days), but part will mature to bread, and part will be shared with another to begin the process again.
Perhaps some important question in both examples are:
Where did the yeast (or the breath of life) ultimately come from?
Why shouldn't I see the recipe through once the process has begun?
What value does the mixture have to the creator of the recipe?
Can I alter the recipe or disregard the instructions and still claim to be following the creators intention?
Again, metaphors are only but so effective at getting concepts across. Biologically speaking, human life begins at conception. In the Old Testament law, the penalty for harming an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22–25). Even non-christians tend to agree that it is unethical for one person to unilaterally decide the fate of another.
Why are we as a society trying to get so close to the line between murder and the sanctity of life? Without question, the consequences of abortion are (at a minimum and in just about every case) the ending of a life that would otherwise have been allowed to mature and grow closer to independence.
People, for the most part, like being alive. Its remarkable to me that it would be so easy for so many to take such a stand for a woman's right to "choose" whether she should be able to decide whether the life growing in her can be allowed to continue.
You have a life, a unique life. It’s not an inanimate object. You can argue all you want but that’s simply how life is created. All life. There is nothing more precious than life itself. Nothing.
99+% of all abortions are elective. Almost none are to save the life of the mother and few are due to rape or incest or even birth defects.
Not only can a tiny fetus feel pain it literally fights for it’s life during an abortion as it is either sliced to bits, chemical burned to death or has its brains suctioned out.
Go ahead and watch the videos.
Late term abortions literally can take place during birth. Imagine the ghoulish nature it takes to even contemplate such a thing. Imagine how many ‘unwanted’ children could have simply been delivered by c-section and given to someone who wants them.
The barbaric and ruthless nature of abortions are stunning and to take the one place that is suppose to be safe and turn in in to the most dangerous place possible is demonic to say the least. Turning a mothers womb into a killing chamber and why? Because of a few months of ‘inconvenience.’
The abortion industry doesn’t care about babies they only care about killing babies. Only wacko leftists can hold such a contradiction in their minds that somehow only they care about babies ‘after’ they are born yet have nothing but contempt and ridicule for babies before they are born. They can only talk of ‘woman’s bodily autonomy’ when the 100% deny the bodily autonomy of a baby.
Instead they rely on pseudo science, mumbo jumbo and slyly pretend that race and class isn’t at the heart of their preferences to kill people they deem less desirable.
Abortions are down due to morning after pills. What is disheartening is the number one reason why anyone is alive - to reproduce - is so rare and afford to so few people. Feminism is nothing short of hatred of women and men - hatred of life. All young women should get pregnant in the early 20’s or even late teens and have children it’s the best thing that will ever happen to them. They should marry their high school or college sweetheart, get jobs and get busy having at least one baby. Any other advice is contrary to their best interests and happiness. Work will always be work. Work will never compare to the presitge, honors or fulfillment of having your own children and raising them well. Families are where it’s at. That is the source of life, stability, fulfillment and plenty of happiness.
This is the only pro choice argument I've heard that stands up to scrutiny. My question is how it relates to the bigger picture of human nature. We've seen how this framework led us from "my body, my choice + safe, legal, and rare" in the 90s, which seems reasonable based on this argument. Maybe safe, legal, early, and rare, ok. But basically this framework. To by the late 20-teens, the pro choice movement was openly advocating for abortion on demand until birth, and "shout your abortion" movements, be proud of it, have a baker's dozen! Wow.
This parallels what we've seen in other areas. The framework of civil rights in the 60s was basically "America has the greatest system ever devised, so no one should be barred from full participation in that system due merely to the color of their skin." Cool, totally agree. A few decades later and we have "anti-racism" as the dominant ideology, which says white people are inherently racist, and the civil rights movement today is openly communist and communist adjacent, rather than being based on agreeing with the classical liberal/natural rights framework like the 60s movement claimed to do, but just wanting full participation in it.
In the 90s and aughts we had the gay rights movement based again on a similar premise - gay people are just our friends, family, and neighbors who happen to have a different sexual preference. You don't have to like it or fully accept it, just tolerate their equality under the law. Not too long afterwards we have activists suing cake shops, and telling us we're transphobic if we don't want to date 'women' with penises.
In isolation I agree with this argument. I have spoken to many pro lifers and haven't yet heard a good argument against it. But in context of what we've seen human nature do to cultural movements that start out making a narrowly correct point, I'm not sure if we should make it a priority to fight this battle culturally. Standing for truth is important, so I don't think we should lie about it. But in terms of emphasis and priority - and perhaps practical application of theory - I'm conflicted about it, even though I agree with the argument.
So the Sorites paradox is being used here to demonstrate that I can one-by-one take away pieces of a person and at some point enough pieces have been taken such that it is no longer a person. I think the human brain peaks at around age 27, so maybe anyone older than 30 is far enough removed from their maximum "personhood" that we can no longer consider them human? Maybe anyone with an IQ below 100 is far enough removed from optimum personhood that they can no longer be considered human? I think we've been down these roads before.
I get that you don't like the use of the "Sorites paradox" argument against abortion. It is a paradox because the definition of heap is subjective and not well defined. I am curious if this is the best argument against abortion you are seeing and you are just wanting to see a better argument?
In the "bun in the oven" example above, the oven is not cooking another oven. And since the baker is not the oven but is able to decide whether or not to bake the cake, I assume this is a metaphor for God? Mixing the ingredients (DNA?) and placing the batter (Zygote?) into the oven (Uterus?)
But of course any metaphor scrutinized too closely will not hold up as it is limited in in the point it is trying to make. The bun in the oven is meant to promote the idea that a growing baby begins simply as ingredients, like a cake batter until the moment it becomes cake.
If it must be a food metaphor though, how about Amish friendship bread? The bread begets bread. If the starter mix is discarded, then the remaining line of bread that can be made from the starter is cut off. The mix itself contains "life" as it causes the combined ingredients to rise immediately. It takes time (about 10 days), but part will mature to bread, and part will be shared with another to begin the process again.
Perhaps some important question in both examples are:
Where did the yeast (or the breath of life) ultimately come from?
Why shouldn't I see the recipe through once the process has begun?
What value does the mixture have to the creator of the recipe?
Can I alter the recipe or disregard the instructions and still claim to be following the creators intention?
Again, metaphors are only but so effective at getting concepts across. Biologically speaking, human life begins at conception. In the Old Testament law, the penalty for harming an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22–25). Even non-christians tend to agree that it is unethical for one person to unilaterally decide the fate of another.
Why are we as a society trying to get so close to the line between murder and the sanctity of life? Without question, the consequences of abortion are (at a minimum and in just about every case) the ending of a life that would otherwise have been allowed to mature and grow closer to independence.
People, for the most part, like being alive. Its remarkable to me that it would be so easy for so many to take such a stand for a woman's right to "choose" whether she should be able to decide whether the life growing in her can be allowed to continue.
Love the example you use.
You seem overburdened with pro-lifers. My condolences.
You have a life, a unique life. It’s not an inanimate object. You can argue all you want but that’s simply how life is created. All life. There is nothing more precious than life itself. Nothing.
99+% of all abortions are elective. Almost none are to save the life of the mother and few are due to rape or incest or even birth defects.
Not only can a tiny fetus feel pain it literally fights for it’s life during an abortion as it is either sliced to bits, chemical burned to death or has its brains suctioned out.
Go ahead and watch the videos.
Late term abortions literally can take place during birth. Imagine the ghoulish nature it takes to even contemplate such a thing. Imagine how many ‘unwanted’ children could have simply been delivered by c-section and given to someone who wants them.
The barbaric and ruthless nature of abortions are stunning and to take the one place that is suppose to be safe and turn in in to the most dangerous place possible is demonic to say the least. Turning a mothers womb into a killing chamber and why? Because of a few months of ‘inconvenience.’
The abortion industry doesn’t care about babies they only care about killing babies. Only wacko leftists can hold such a contradiction in their minds that somehow only they care about babies ‘after’ they are born yet have nothing but contempt and ridicule for babies before they are born. They can only talk of ‘woman’s bodily autonomy’ when the 100% deny the bodily autonomy of a baby.
Instead they rely on pseudo science, mumbo jumbo and slyly pretend that race and class isn’t at the heart of their preferences to kill people they deem less desirable.
Abortions are down due to morning after pills. What is disheartening is the number one reason why anyone is alive - to reproduce - is so rare and afford to so few people. Feminism is nothing short of hatred of women and men - hatred of life. All young women should get pregnant in the early 20’s or even late teens and have children it’s the best thing that will ever happen to them. They should marry their high school or college sweetheart, get jobs and get busy having at least one baby. Any other advice is contrary to their best interests and happiness. Work will always be work. Work will never compare to the presitge, honors or fulfillment of having your own children and raising them well. Families are where it’s at. That is the source of life, stability, fulfillment and plenty of happiness.
This is the only pro choice argument I've heard that stands up to scrutiny. My question is how it relates to the bigger picture of human nature. We've seen how this framework led us from "my body, my choice + safe, legal, and rare" in the 90s, which seems reasonable based on this argument. Maybe safe, legal, early, and rare, ok. But basically this framework. To by the late 20-teens, the pro choice movement was openly advocating for abortion on demand until birth, and "shout your abortion" movements, be proud of it, have a baker's dozen! Wow.
This parallels what we've seen in other areas. The framework of civil rights in the 60s was basically "America has the greatest system ever devised, so no one should be barred from full participation in that system due merely to the color of their skin." Cool, totally agree. A few decades later and we have "anti-racism" as the dominant ideology, which says white people are inherently racist, and the civil rights movement today is openly communist and communist adjacent, rather than being based on agreeing with the classical liberal/natural rights framework like the 60s movement claimed to do, but just wanting full participation in it.
In the 90s and aughts we had the gay rights movement based again on a similar premise - gay people are just our friends, family, and neighbors who happen to have a different sexual preference. You don't have to like it or fully accept it, just tolerate their equality under the law. Not too long afterwards we have activists suing cake shops, and telling us we're transphobic if we don't want to date 'women' with penises.
In isolation I agree with this argument. I have spoken to many pro lifers and haven't yet heard a good argument against it. But in context of what we've seen human nature do to cultural movements that start out making a narrowly correct point, I'm not sure if we should make it a priority to fight this battle culturally. Standing for truth is important, so I don't think we should lie about it. But in terms of emphasis and priority - and perhaps practical application of theory - I'm conflicted about it, even though I agree with the argument.
commoditized services as a convenience is problematic
tiktok is more precious than (insert thing)
there's a lot of potential energy in that cake batter