|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:10 pm
Tiger of the Fire I havnt seen a compromise yet, so I'm going ot make one. You can say fetus if you want, but please dont try to call out on an emotional ploy if we decide to say baby. Fetus and baby are sanonymous to us. At the same time, if you are goign to use fetus as a "proper" medical definition, then please do so with all stages of life. I agree.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:37 pm
Tiger of the Fire Fetus and baby are synonymous to us. And to most colloquial English speakers. Including professors I've had for biology, biochemistry and physiology, who all tend to use the words interchangeably when referring to a fetus. They also use the word "mother" for a pregnant woman, since...y'know...genetically speaking, she's already a parent. That's not even a colloquialism, it's a scientific fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:23 pm
La Veuve Zin They also use the word "mother" for a pregnant woman, since...y'know...genetically speaking, she's already a parent. That's not even a colloquialism, it's a scientific fact. Only when speaking about biology though. Because one doesn't call the biological mother the "parent" of an adopted child, their parents are the people who raised them, not the people who conceived them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:11 pm
WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire I havnt seen a compromise yet, so I'm going ot make one. You can say fetus if you want, but please dont try to call out on an emotional ploy if we decide to say baby. Fetus and baby are sanonymous to us. At the same time, if you are goign to use fetus as a "proper" medical definition, then please do so with all stages of life. I agree. I love how we make progress instead of argue every little point ^^ I'd hug you...but you're anthro right now...and me hugging you would lead to more then just simple hugging <.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:11 pm
Tiger of the Fire I love how we make progress instead of argue every little point ^^ I'd hug you...but you're anthro right now...and me hugging you would lead to more then just simple hugging <.< *growls* *wink*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:25 am
WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire I love how we make progress instead of argue every little point ^^ I'd hug you...but you're anthro right now...and me hugging you would lead to more then just simple hugging <.< *growls* *wink* Thats it! Talk dirty to me baby!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:20 pm
WatersMoon110 I mean, I don't like it when people use the term "baby" to refer to unborn humans just for emotional effect, while debating this issue. But if someone just feels most comfortable with that term, it doesn't really bother me much. It is usually as much about emotions when someone insists upon using the term "fetus" as when someone insists upon using the term "baby" in my opinion (not just uses the term casually, but when someone goes out of their way to try to make other people use it). That's actually mainly what I meant in my first post. I just explained it pretty badly. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:53 pm
Tyshia2 Seeing the Kraken I have to disagree with your last sentence. Two things: one, you're implying that pro-lifers have nothing but emotional appeals to base their argument on, and two, you're saying it's okay for them but not us, which I have to disagree with. Emotional appeal is not a valid debate tactic, therefore it's not okay for EITHER side to do it. Point 1) I'm sorry it sounded like I was implying pro-lifers only rely on emotional appeals. I meant nothing of the sort.
Point 2) That was the message I got from the posts in the main forum, which was why I felt compelled to post this thread. I completely agree, it's not OK for either side to use emotional appeals. I believe it was Plato who said that Passion and Desire must work beneath Reason, pushing it forward. What's the point of Reasoning if you have no Passion? Emotion should not take the place for thought, but it should not be absent, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:36 am
kp is dcvi I believe it was Plato who said that Passion and Desire must work beneath Reason, pushing it forward. What's the point of Reasoning if you have no Passion? Emotion should not take the place for thought, but it should not be absent, either. Kant, however, says that Reason must be used instead of and apart from Desires. That the Moral choice is both universal and reached only through Reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:12 am
WatersMoon110 kp is dcvi I believe it was Plato who said that Passion and Desire must work beneath Reason, pushing it forward. What's the point of Reasoning if you have no Passion? Emotion should not take the place for thought, but it should not be absent, either. Kant, however, says that Reason must be used instead of and apart from Desires. That the Moral choice is both universal and reached only through Reason. Ohoho, then we have a difference in foundation! (Ironically, Aristotle too held radically different views from his teacher Plato or HIS teacher, Socrates). Again, I argue that chasing emotion out of the debate is wrong, absolutely. This world tries too much to do that: don't bring your heart into the debate, always be politically correct, never say this, never do that, yadda, yadda. It really tries to dehumanize human thought. Instead, it seems the proper way to argue is like a computer speaking, with a forty page index of citations and footnotes to back yourself up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:37 pm
kp is dcvi WatersMoon110 kp is dcvi I believe it was Plato who said that Passion and Desire must work beneath Reason, pushing it forward. What's the point of Reasoning if you have no Passion? Emotion should not take the place for thought, but it should not be absent, either. Kant, however, says that Reason must be used instead of and apart from Desires. That the Moral choice is both universal and reached only through Reason. Ohoho, then we have a difference in foundation! (Ironically, Aristotle too held radically different views from his teacher Plato or HIS teacher, Socrates). Again, I argue that chasing emotion out of the debate is wrong, absolutely. This world tries too much to do that: don't bring your heart into the debate, always be politically correct, never say this, never do that, yadda, yadda. It really tries to dehumanize human thought. Instead, it seems the proper way to argue is like a computer speaking, with a forty page index of citations and footnotes to back yourself up. I'd much rather live in a world ruled by reason and backed by proof than in a world run entirely on emotion.
Emotion and opinions are relative. They change. The true facts don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:51 pm
kp is dcvi WatersMoon110 kp is dcvi I believe it was Plato who said that Passion and Desire must work beneath Reason, pushing it forward. What's the point of Reasoning if you have no Passion? Emotion should not take the place for thought, but it should not be absent, either. Kant, however, says that Reason must be used instead of and apart from Desires. That the Moral choice is both universal and reached only through Reason. Ohoho, then we have a difference in foundation! (Ironically, Aristotle too held radically different views from his teacher Plato or HIS teacher, Socrates). Again, I argue that chasing emotion out of the debate is wrong, absolutely. This world tries too much to do that: don't bring your heart into the debate, always be politically correct, never say this, never do that, yadda, yadda. It really tries to dehumanize human thought. Instead, it seems the proper way to argue is like a computer speaking, with a forty page index of citations and footnotes to back yourself up. I disagree. While emotions are wonderful personal reasons to believe something, I feel one should use logic to convince others. I believe that the majority of emotions involved in this debate are fear and anger (with some pity, sorrow, and even guilt mixed in). I don't think that good debates are had based on these emotions. There are really only two ends (in my opinion) to a debate based only on the emotions one has, either it dissolves into petty name-calling because of anger or the two parties agree to disagree since each cares more about an opposite stance and are not going to change that stance. Isn't Philosophy fun? It's like a huge argument going on over thousands of years! I do have to admit my incredible fondness for Kant (he's so pompous and full of himself, but I really agree with many of his main points - I find him a little endearing *wink*).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:53 pm
Tyshia2 I'd much rather live in a world ruled by reason and backed by proof than in a world run entirely on emotion.
Emotion and opinions are relative. They change. The true facts don't. But more information is learned all the time. Holding to only the facts one knows is also illogical, one must be willing (and able) to learn new information all of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:46 am
Dear Lord, this reminds me of Legally Blond, where Elle Woods makes her speech, and goes,
"On our very first day at Harvard, a very wise Professor quoted Aristotle: 'The law is reason free from passion.' Well, no offense to Aristotle, but in my three years at Harvard I have come to find that passion is a key ingredient to the study and practice of law...and of life."
This is a testament to how many times I've seen that movie.
I think you really need to have both reason and emotion. Otherwise, you end up with societies that cut off people who don't contribute and aren't likely to start contributing. The elderly, the poor, the disabled, the sick, they're all expendable and they don't have the same status as those who are healthy and able. Pure, unadulterated reason would tell us that the society must be strong. Reason and emotions combined are what tell us the individuals and the society both matter. Emotions will tell us that the individuals matter. I may be way off on this, forgive me if I'm not making any sense, it's too early to function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:42 am
lymelady I think you really need to have both reason and emotion. Otherwise, you end up with societies that cut off people who don't contribute and aren't likely to start contributing. The elderly, the poor, the disabled, the sick, they're all expendable and they don't have the same status as those who are healthy and able. Pure, unadulterated reason would tell us that the society must be strong. Reason and emotions combined are what tell us the individuals and the society both matter. Emotions will tell us that the individuals matter. I may be way off on this, forgive me if I'm not making any sense, it's too early to function. Maybe the issue is that I was only thinking in terms of this particular debate (and debating in general), while you, and maybe (wonderful) KP, were thinking about life in general? I don't think that everyone should try to be emotionless all the time. I am about one of the most emotion-driven people I know. I just feel that bringing one's emotional reactions into debate, and especially trying to use emotional tactics to convince others of one's argument in debates, is a bad idea. For (a rather odd) example, I hate chickens, due to being attacked by a flock of them when I was young. If I were debating about chicken rights, it would not help to convince people that they should, say, have the tips of their beaks cut off (this prevents them from holding a "pecking party" and pecking another chicken to death - though I don't actually believe it is ethical, personally) if I explained about my hatred of them and attack by them. Because other people might have had a favorite pet chicken that they loved growing up, and all that would be accomplished is that we would get very angry at each other, and nothing in the debate would be accomplished. I think that might explain where I am coming from (and my irrational hatred of chickens *wink*), in terms of debate. Kant said that Reason should be used to make moral decisions, but that Desires are perfectly acceptable when making amoral ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
