Comments on EvidenceOfGod/Haven head-to-head debate

[otseng]

This thread is for comments on the head-to-head debate between EvidenceOfGod and Haven.

Does a woman's right to bodily autonomy justify abortion?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 19 by EvidenceOfGod]

Yes, as a formal debate it has to be judged on what was actually said, not projected suppositions about underlying motive.

Shadow boxing against a strawman.

If so, using arguments from sentimentalism are just poorer in quality than a rational argument.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 17 by EvidenceOfGod]

I think they were all based on a religious foundation.

All of your arguments relied on the philosophical viewpoint of Aristotelian essentialism, which is religious in nature because it implies supernaturalism (not necessarily theism, although many theists use it to support their gods) and has no empirical support whatsoever (it can't have such support even in principle, because these 'essences' are inherently undetectable). Because of this, your arguments were indirectly religious.

Thats not very fair.

Given that the very topic of the debate hinged on something as "essential" as the philosophical/Aristotelian idea of individual autonomy how do you expect your opponent to avoid the elephant in the room? Why did you even agree to the use of the word autonomy?

I think you are the one trying to smuggle religion in.

If undetectable "essences" are tantamount to supernaturalism then other intangibles must fall into the same category.

Human rights? Show me an autopsy report where they have detected such a thing.
Bad news for LGBTQ activists if gay rights dont inherently exist.
Equality? Soul mates?

[Bust Nak]

A comment on the choice of term.

From fertilization, the unborn are full human beings, biologically speaking. This is supported by virtually all embryology textbooks since the beginning of the 20th century. When the sperm and the egg unite, they cease to exist and a new, genetically distinct human organism arises in its place, developing itself from within along the path of human development. As the unborn is a full human being from the time of fertilization, a woman’s right to bodily autonomy does not cover a right to an abortion...

Now, there is a possible distinction to be made: human in the biological sense does not necessarily mean they are human in the moral sense, i.e. persons. [3] After all, “human� and “person� are not interchangeable.

I object and would instead say that from fertilization, the unborn are full human but not human beings, "human being" is synonyms with "person" and as you point out, "person" is not interchange with "human." What is or isn't a human being, is not a scientific question but a philosophical one or a legal one.

[Haven]

That's just a cop-out, though.

1) My arguments are not inherently religious, though I do think their truth shows undeniably that God exists. But these are arguments that atheists can recognize and accept.

Atheists who accept ontological nominalism can't accept your arguments, and essentialism seems to be largely based on religious, or at least non-natural, justifications.

2) Of course they have empirical support. I didn't go into it in the debate because it wasn't really the place, and I shouldn't have to do all the intellectual heavy lifting (if you can't present arguments against my point of view, then you can't rightly reject them in the course of the debate). To say they are inherently undetectable is simply false.

1. I think I did make an effort to refute essentialism, but I didn't want to make that my main focus because the central topic of the debate was abortion.

2. I think a debate over philosophical essentialism would be really interesting. Personally, I don't see how "essences" could be detected through the means of science, but it seems like you think they can be.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I haven't read all of Haven's posts, but since its clear EvidenceofGod fails to credibly provide/establish any criteria for moral justification, there's simply no way they could have adequately made their case (regardless of whether Haven did or not). This makes the string of non-sequiturs, questionable definitions, and erroneous claims riddling their posts largely moot. It seems this debate suffered from a failure to lay the necessary groundwork for at least one of its participants (EvidenceofGod) to even plausibly claim to have met their burden.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I object and would instead say that from fertilization, the unborn are full human but not human beings, "human being" is synonyms with "person" and as you point out, "person" is not interchange with "human." What is or isn't a human being, is not a scientific question but a philosophical one or a legal one.

Regardless of how we use the terms, the fact remains that, given that we're talking purely about being a "full human being" in a genetic/biological sense, there are no moral/ethical conclusions to be drawn from this (in other words, conclusions pertinent to the debate topic) without supplying additional premises.

[Divine Insight]

1) My arguments are not inherently religious, though I do think their truth shows undeniably that God exists. But these are arguments that atheists can recognize and accept.

I don't see where your arguments even remotely suggest any any God exists. All you are doing is assuming that it's immoral to kill a human person, and that a fertilized egg qualifies as a "human person". Neither of those assumptions even remotely suggest that any God exists.

Moreover, what God are you even referring to? Surely not the Biblical God. The Biblical God is guilty of horribly immoral actions, behaviors, and directives. So any attempt to argue moral values from a biblical perspective fails in any case.

Finally, your debate here doesn't even address the real issues associate with the controversy surrounding abortion issues in the USA. In fact, it actually avoids them entirely by demanding that the debate focus solely on a question of moral idealism.

The question of whether or not abortion should be made illegal in the USA is a question that requires consideration of many other factors. It's not a even a question of morality really. In fact, from the point of view of a pure moral ideology we can ask whether it is moral for a government to force everyone who gets pregnant to take their pregnancy to term. I'm sure there are moral arguments that can be made against the morality of that well.

So your presentation doesn't serve any useful purpose in either attempting to demonstrate that any God exists, nor that any government should force every pregnant person to take their pregnancy to term.

Your argument is one of "pure philosophical ideology" based on an idealism of "Perfect Morality" without any consideration for other real-world factors or any practical considerations at all.

~~~~~

I mean, think about it just for a moment.

If you were to suggest to me that in a world of absolute "Perfect Morality" there would be no abortions, I would agree.

Does that prove there is a God? No, not at all. All it proves is that you and I can imagine ideas of "Perfection".

The problem with this is that in that same imagined "Perfectly Moral World" there would be no unwanted pregnancies in the first place. In fact, an imagined "Perfectly Moral World" would be extremely different from the world we actually live in.

So where does this idea of applying a concept of "Perfect Morality" to real world situations have any practical value?

Contrary to your claims, it doesn't show undeniably that any God exist, much less the immoral Biblical God.

And it has no practical value in a real-world discussion on whether or not a government should force every pregnant person to take their pregnancies to term. This is why this debate was totally meaningless in terms of the real debates concerning abortion in the USA.

Your debate here was a purely philosophical debate totally unrelated to any real-world issues. Totally ignoring real-world practical matters all the while imagining that you are somehow showing undeniably that some God supposedly exists, which in fact you weren't remotely doing. That latter ideal is entirely in your own imagination and most certainly wasn't supported by your debate.

Just because humans can imagine in their minds what they consider to be a "Perfect World" doesn't imply that any God exists.

In fact, being able to imagine a "Perfect World" is precisely why many atheists flat-out reject the Biblical God. The Biblical God most certainly doesn't represent the creator of any "Perfect World". And the world we live in doesn't appear to be perfect either. Therefore, clearly we can imagine things that are not real.

That's all that demonstrates.

It most certainly doesn't demonstrate that any God exists.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 27 by Divine Insight]

Its awfully hard to imagine how even the most stubbornly committed apologist could see any of the arguments presented by EvidenceofGod in this debate as implying the existence of (any) God/gods... This appears to be yet another case where EvidenceofGod expects us to just fill in whatever missing premises are required to get from their stated argument to the conclusion. But that's not really how it works.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 27 by Divine Insight]

Its awfully hard to imagine how even the most stubbornly committed apologist could see any of the arguments presented by EvidenceofGod in this debate as implying the existence of (any) God/gods... This appears to be yet another case where EvidenceofGod expects us to just fill in whatever missing premises are required to get from their stated argument to the conclusion. But that's not really how it works.

I absolutely agree. I am personally very "spiritually-oriented" on an intuitive and emotional level. So much so that I actually do believe in a mystical essence to reality on a purely intuitively level. And I even imagine a potential "higher consciousness" as well.

None the less, there is absolutely nothing in EvidenceOfGod's arguments that even remotely shows that this needs to be the case.

In fact, the whole abortion issue actually brings up extremely opposite questions. If there does exist a "Higher Consciousness" and especially one who is in the business of "creating souls". Then why is that "God" placing souls in wombs where they are unwanted in the first place?

The fact that situations arise where abortions are required, especially in the cases of rape and incest, brings up the question of why a creator God would have chosen to place a baby in that womb in the first place.

This actually suggests very strongly that there is no God. Especially not one who "creates souls" with any sort of plan or intent.

The very fact that unwanted pregnancies occur at all is very strong evidence that there is no God. Especially not one who intervenes in human affairs.

After all, we have religious women actually praying to God to allow them to get pregnant. They want to have a child very much, but for whatever reason they can't get pregnant even though they are married in a monogamous relationship.

Yet we are to believe that this God ignores their prayers and instead goes off placing babies in the wombs of women who don't even want to get pregnant?

How in the world is that evidence for a God? It's not. On the contrary it's precisely the opposite.

It's these kinds of issues that actually makes it difficult to believe in a God even for those who would like to. Why a God would place new souls in the wombs of women who don't want to get pregnant makes no sense. In fact that would be an extremely malevolent God to be sure.

Why help a rapist impregnate an innocent victim of rape? This would be a God who is helping the rapist to terrorize his victims.

This is actually evidence that there is no God. Just the opposite of what EvidenceOfGod proposes.

If no rape victim ever got pregnant, that might actually be evidence of God. In fact, if that were the case I'm sure the religious people would be pointing to that as "evidence of God".

In fact, if the only people who could ever get pregnant were married couples, then that would indeed be pretty strong evidence of a God. The mere fact that just anyone can get pregnant at any time is actually evidence that there is no God at all. Especially not one who is in charge of "creating souls".

[higgy1911]

Just for clarification would the debaters care to answer a question for me.

how is referring to the right of the unborn to life anymore essentialist or inherently religious than the right to bodily autonomy?

Someone asked this already and I am curious. Is there a case for the right to bodily autonomy that cannot be used equally well for the right to life of a fetus(or anything really).