Myth 1: All human life is a person. the embryo is human life. then the embryo is a person.
Review: The major premise of the argument is wrong, because while a person is human life does not imply that the reciprocal is cierta.por example, heart or kidney to someone is human life, but are not "persons" nor is the embryo, since although this is a living organism is not a personal being, as to be a person is necessary but not sufficient, to have neural connections in the brain that allow the feeling, thinking, etc., but the embryo does not develop synapses before 29 weeks, ergo not a person with a conscience. On the other hand, the embryo or fetus are not people even when they have synaptic connections, as for being a person is necessary to be integrated into a civilization that teach values \u200b\u200bthat is not the case of the unborn, and neither is the case of humans living in primitive tribes of Africa who, despite having mental functions are not "people" do not live in a civilization that has developed writing and the rule of law.
Myth 2: The embryo is a person, because he has an immortal soul given by God, then an abortion is a crime.
Review: The Myth of the soul and was refuted by Hume, Kant, the materialists and the neo-positivists who demonstrated long ago that the soul rational arguments are nothing but mere sophistry to hide a vulgar pious wish of immortality ("hunger immortality "that spoke Unamuno). The soul is a empty concept that long ago was expelled from scientific psychology and psychobiology that part of the fertile hypothesis of identity between mental phenomena and brain processes that make it unnecessary metaphysical myth of the soul which is unscientific because it is untraceable, unverifiable and to contradict the principle of conservation of energía.Por The argument that the embryo is a person to have a soul breathed by God is a fallacy of false premise.
Myth 3: The embryo is a person not born to be the embryo stage simply by passing the person not to be embryo ceases to be such a person.
Review: To say that the embryo is a single stage of development of a person who exists in a state of embryo is a fallacy of begging the question, because it assumes as true what is at issue, namely whether or not the embryo is a person who has rights such. To say that the embryo is a person without even precisely define it is very dishonest person, especially when it appeals to metaphysical entities like the soul or God are unverifiable and contradictory and therefore explain nothing in relation to the alleged "personality" of the unborn child.Also this argument makes a confusion of concepts and to identify, incorrectly, and free, being in power to be in act, as it is intended that because an embryo or fetus can develop into the people, then we are "people" today, but that argument is as absurd as claiming that because an egg in power (in a possible future) is a chicken, then the egg in this it is a hen (sic), but this nonsense does not explain why the freírme the egg does not know a chicken, let alone explain why the egg does not cost as much as chicken face, or cackling like this ;-). It is worth saying that such sophistry is based on a metaphysical teleological vision which states that the future of the hand of divine providence, determines the past through the present (re-sic) in the same way that personality determines their child's future present and past fetus embryo, but this contradicts divine teleology to causality that is up to the events of the past (not future planning and divine foreknowledge) that determine future events through the events of this, then teleology contradicting the causality is one way contradicting the principle of sufficient reason and, therefore, is irracional.De the same way that it is absurd to suggest that recently planted an acorn is now a robust oak, oak because his future ("existing in limbo?) determines this acorn, but Acorn is destroyed by a flood, fire etc. then never be an oak acorn and an oak if it was never impossible that something that was never determined if fue.Al past as if a fetus dies in a spontaneous abortion was never a person and if ever was a person it is impossible what does not exist in the future determine the existing embryo was in the past before the abortion.
Myth 4: Since science can not accurately determine exactly when the embryo becomes a person, the simplest hypothesis is to argue that the embryo is a person to be the semantic distinction between pure fruit free of prejudice of abortion.
Review: A myth that we can resist the arguments the criticism of myth 1, but this argument rests on a fallacy known as the fallacy of the continuum or continuity: the fallacy that states that because we can not establish the precise boundaries between the extreme terms of a continuum, then there difference between the extremes. Translated into our theme, as we can not determine the precise boundary between the most extreme person embryo and embryonic development process, then there is no such distinction between ends and both denote the same, ie, are "people", but that is as absurd as saying we do not know the precise day and time in which an adult becomes an old, then there is no such distinction and the adult is already a old (and hopefully not for my good ;-)).
Myth 5: Abortion trauma a child always a woman.
Review: There is no doubt that "many" women to abortion have a sense of guilt, but it allows to take out the fallacy of induction false that "all" the group of women who have abortions go through a trauma, right? . On the other hand, this myth does not say anything about the women who do have a trauma by having an unwanted child (the result of rape, for example), which is underestimated by saying that in life there are happy and some sad moments, but not going to have an abortion just to avoid a major upset, but this flimsy "argument" you can go around saying we must not abort, in serious cases such as rape, only to avoid a penalty because, after all, in life there are happy moments and other painful right?.
Myth 6: The abortion is always a crime "unfair" contrary to "natural law", then abortion is a crime.
Review: To say that abortion is "always" a crime is absurd, because if a country abortion is regulated by law, ergo abortion is not a crime because the crime is a violation of the laws of the right positive of a nation and if the right of a nation allows abortion, ergo not a crime to practice (within limits imposed by the applicability legal corpus that political society, that is). And if champions of fetal life tell us it is "unfair" to abortion but allows the jurisprudence of a country should respond to the word "justice" was defined by Gayo jurist as "giving each his own" and that "giving to every one who" is set by the previous positive order (not the fictional order of God the Father or the alleged extraterrestrial Ganymede), ergo what the law prescribe fair, because it fits right (and no justice outside of positive law) that does not mean that that right can be inspired by moral or ethical virtues (which may be in opposition to other religious or moral rules). For Finally to say that abortion is wrong because it goes against "natural law" is confusing and dark, and that should be clear that the sense of the term "natural law": 1) if by natural law refers to the natural law of St. Thomas Theological Aquinas, according to what would a supposed natural laws emanating from God "unmoved mover" who must obey, I should say that: a) the 5-way of St. Thomas to prove the existence of God and were refuted by Hume, Kant, Russell and Good (among others) and therefore no rational basis to conclude the existence of God and if there is evidence that satisfies God, the less the need to prove the alleged existence of natural laws that emanate from such entelequia.b) Assuming, hypothetically, that there was a God (that there) that "God" would not necessarily be identical to the God of Catholicism may be the architect of the Masonic God or the God of the deists watchmaker for whom God is not concerned with the affairs of men. It could also be the nature of Spinoza God does not love what men. It is Catholics who would have to demonstrate that God exists and God is painted as Catholics and that is Allah, Krishna or Spinoza's Deus sive natura. but since they can not prove the existence of God, unless they can demonstrate their essence "Catholic" and, therefore, not worth the iusnaturalism católico.c) Assuming, hypothetically, that God exists and is the God of the Catholics that would not prove that all "should" obey their laws, as in rigor of descriptive statements in the indicative (God exists and claims to do X) we can not deduce the conclusion trial policy in the imperative (then we should do X), as this is a logical-grammatical error known as the naturalistic fallacy. If a Catholic tells me that the existence of God is a true statement, then his orders are obeyed, I would say that even if it were true (which it is) would not follow orders because such a God, and that while a statement can be classified as true or false does not imply that the rules or mandatory (must do X) supposedly deduced statement are true, that rigor and standards and imperatives are neither true nor false (because they are not listed) are only effective and ineffective in terms of given objectives. If I said that I should obey God because if not the wrath of God will crush me answer that that is no reason or proof that I must obey, what reason would have to obey a God be so angry that no one deserves obedience? why should not challenge it if that is my wish? Is not oppose the heroism of the powerful more beautiful and glorious to obey him as a submissive and contemptible poodle? but as an omnipotent God is so powerless that they can not make a simple atheist obey him? To say that disobedience to God's commandments attacks God is calling into question his omnipotence, because how can someone be affect an infinite power? if you believe that God may be impaired by the disobedience, then God is not omnipotent and if God is omnipotent is not ... as you can see the idea of \u200b\u200bGod is full of dead ends and contradictions that Catholics can not solve; then his divine natural law has no bases.2) if by natural law refer to the laws of organic nature remind them that a descriptive sentence (as set out on laws) can not logically deduce a sentence prescriptive (naturalistic fallacy). but suppose it were true, yet the "natural law" goes against the same anti-abortion, because we could invoke the law of natural selection for embryo abortion in cases of childbirth endangering life the mother who "struggle for survival" against the embryo. We can also rely on natural selection in cases where the births pose a danger to the life of the community who have a true "population explosion" aggravated by economic problems, food shortages, droughts, etc. in this case, more than mothers will be the state who require mothers to abort not to jeopardize the continuity of the nation in the "struggle for existence" Darwinian (as in the People's Republic of China, for example).
Myth 7: Who is in favor of "free choice" is pro-abortion and who remain "neutral" is already an abortionist or an accessory to them.
Review: The argument is inconsistent, since it is possible that someone is pro-choice and consciously choose the pro-life ... Or perhaps the anti-abortion is not a "free choice" of the subject?. The argument that who is not anti-abortion stands for is only the fallacy of bifurcation, and to pretend that there is only 2 alternatives on abortion (pro and con) when in fact many people do not feel challenged by the question, either because they do not care, are too busy working or belong to cultures that do not pose these tópicos.Por other side is dogmatic sees all "black and white" unconditionally pro-abortion or against abortion without conditions "and forget that there are flats and degrees, as some are against abortion except in cases such as rape or danger death of the mother where they are willing to allow it. Others are in favor of allowing abortion, but only before 3 months and are opposed to abort after that period (even if the mother is at risk or no risk of birth defects). As shown "there is everything in the vineyard of the Lord" and is not considered abortions honest someone who is neutral as well as, in another context, not a terrorist who remains neutral to the divine cross Bushies "are with us or with terrorism "because, after all, not everyone has a habit of bombing or evangelize the" Moors "or minus the foul habit of bawling" God Save the USA "in a Mormon temple o. .. on the deck of an aircraft carrier of the Unitas Yankee, I say ;-).
0 comments:
Post a Comment