Oh really quickly [...]
Really quickly? Your post is making a lot out of very little. My statement was clear, concise, direct, and factual; a majority of your analysis is superfluous, because it makes an assumption that wasn't clearly intended in my original statement: if you read the words as they are written, you see that what I said was obvious fact, and I will elaborate on this in a moment. Since we are talking about a logical statement, there is no reasonable purpose for bringing Arta's opinions up other than to foster a kind of "majority opinion == logical opinion" mentality, which we both know to be a logical fallacy; further, Arta believes I was technically correct: "[Rule is adhering] to the specific definitions of words and tenets of logic." If you want to move this discussion towards a "who's right, who's wrong" battle rather than an analysis of whether a particular statement is or is not factual, then it is in your best interests to avoid Arta's belief as much as possible -- because he sees the logic as it is, regardless of whether he sides with either of us. Your insistence on bringing him up continually is reminiscent of the bratty childhood boy who says to his father, "well, John also thinks candy is good for you!"
As I commented earlier, it's as though we're both staring at a blue pen, yet one of us has been conditioned to really,
really want the pen to be yellow. I say the pen is blue, you wish that the pen is yellow fervently enough that to you it seems yellow, and almost no amount of reason will change what you see at this point: you see the pen as yellow.
Now I believe you're fighting to protect your ego and to save face, because it really isn't hard for one to see that what I said was factual. I don't think reason will change your mind at this point. Regardless of any small concession you make, you will never allow yourself to be "wrong." In any case, since you went to an effort in your reply, I will make an effort to treat what you wrote somewhat seriously.
As I've said, I've never referred to abortion as "murder."
Please try and be honest. I've seen you do this several times; to quote only a couple:
...to not commit murder of another person conflicts with the desire to have an abortion
Society looks bleakly on people who are labelled killers. So there are a variety of ways to get around that
However, in my acknowledgement that this statement is true, you are attempting to lure me into the notion that a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus is not a human being. This is a logical fallacy in the following form:
....
Wait, let's stop the analysis right there and back up a little. Since when am I "attempting to lure [you] into the notion that a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus is not a human being"?
In this case, I think we both agree that A is a fetus, embryo, fertilized egg, whatever you'd like to call it; and B is a human being. Right?
Wrong!It is now time for me to return to my comment that you've made assumptions, and then gone on a major tangent proving how what I said is not necessarily fact based on your assumptions. This is all rubbish. You are trying so desperately hard to be right that you are beginning to read into a statement so much that you pull out these interpretations like a magician pulling a rose out from his mouth,
and then you proceed to criticize the interpretation!Let's rewind, and go back to what I said. No need for all this extra clutter that has been brought in with regards to what Arta might of said, or what "other adjectives" I used in a private discussion, and so on. That's all extraneous information. In an attempt to honestly examine the content of what was said, I will avoid blowing smoke and just cut things down to the one statement that provoked the emotional "that is not a fact" tirade:
My statementIn the beginning stages of pregnancy, it is inaccurate to refer to the fertilized egg "as a child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed.
1) There is no mention here of whether I believe a fertilized egg to be human or not. I think this consideration is extremely silly; e.g. "as soon as something is labelled human it is wrong to end it." Human is just a word. We should not make judgements based on the title of something. That is emotional thinking, not rational reasoning.
This is a different argument though, and it's irrelevant here. I am indifferent to whether a fertilized egg is called human or not.
2) A fertilized egg hasn't been born. Therefore it is inaccurate to refer to it as though it had been born. Simple enough? Agree? Probably not, but such is the human condition. We are not naturally very logical creatures.
3) It is inaccurate to refer to a fertilized egg as though it had been significantly developed [over a fertilized egg]. What is in the square brackets is implied in much the same way "I" is implied in the sentence:
"I am trying to reason, and [
I] am not being listened to."
There, done. I am sure some readers here can understand now why what I said was factual, if they didn't to begin with. To explain it any further would be to bring my tone to a level of condescention I am not yet ready for. I can hardly apologize for being unclear, because what I said was very direct, and I think the response was hilariously uncalled for -- (I say this with the image of a
blue pen in my mind). You were dying to point out something I said wasn't factual, and you leaped on the wrong sentence. Of course, I suppose this attitude doesn't make it easier for you to admit that you were incorrect, but I have long since given up on that.
Now that this has been addressed
at length, I will answer your mostly
unrelated questions.
SEPERATE issue:
Let me ask you a question. You tend to look at life through the Descartes perspective, right? Cogito ergo sum?
Well, I really haven't given it a great deal of thought. But yes, I suppose I think awareness and thought are as good a definition of life as any. Biologists are still quite unsure of what life is, and haven't come to any technical definitions a majority of scientists agree with.
Do you have any memory of your first year or two following your birth?
I do have a few instantaneous memories, like photographs. Of course, there are parts I can't recall, although I'm sure most would agree I was aware and conscious for those parts, and at the time I certainly was. For example, there are parts of yesterday I can't recall.
the definition of life or of being human is what's under debate.
Not in my factual statement. As I've said, I don't even think the definition of what is "human" should be an issue in the debate, although knowing people, it probably is. There is
no good reason that "human life", simply because it is "human" should be more worthy of survival than any other type of life. That is another debate though.
Modification: minor corrections.
