Debate analysis: Elective abortion is immoral

[Aught3]

Phil's latest reply was in two halves for me. The second half was well argued and reasoned and gives Joe something to respond to. But, IMO, the first half was not so good. There is still a problem with referring to 'potential to use' and 'potential to develop' under the catch-all label of potential. Joe has now suggested the alternative word 'capacity' and explained his reasons for doing this. Phil still insists on using them the same way so I think he could fairly be said to be using the fallacy of equivocation.

The weird thing is even if Phil does concede that his 'sleeping person' objection is not adequate there are still other objections he could launch against Joe's definition of personhood. The more he continues with this particular line of argument the stronger Joe's case looks. But that's my opinion

 

[Case]

I didn't wanted to adress tis point directly to you since you are not the only person making the same comparison.

Apparently you think my stance was similar to something you read earlier and mention later in your comment... which is just plain wrong. You're glossing over the crucial points of my argument.

"Oh, and I'm also a bit dislexic." - There are pretty decent tests to see if you are indeed dyslexic or just a 'garden variety' poor reader[1]. To my knowledge, 'dyslexic' only refers to people diagnosed with a specific deficit which is not in line with their other cognitive capacities, generally speaking.

Secondly the baby to mother relation is not one of simbiotic, the mother would be able to live prety well if the baby were for example to die...

Nowhere did I claim that the mother couldn't live if the unborn baby died, but you are nonetheless mistaken about this. It can in fact pose a great risk to the mother if the unborn baby dies, for instance in case of an infected abortion. Note that abortion in this sense denotes the simple fact of aborted pregnancy, irrespective of the cause. Read my post, dude. I defined symbiosis in terms of at least one (1) symbiont depending on the other for survival. And you don't really want to tell me you think fetuses could survive on their own, now, do you?

the mother doesn't colect any benefit from the existence of the baby other than it passes on her genes

The whole point of reproduction (i.e. having a baby) is to pass on your genes, so to call the existence of a baby (even if yet unborn) nonbeneficial for the parent in spe is utter nonsense.

And the comparison of leeche was indeed made by some pro-abrtion feminist (not on the league of reason)

I don't care what other people say whose statements have no bearing on mine. To make this abundantly clear: I am neither female, nor a feminist, nor did I nor do I hold the view that unborn babies were leeches. I don't know why you make that assertion, but it is FALSE and I would appreciate it if you stopped purporting I shared their views. In the case of human reproduction, the symbiotic relationship between parent and offspring in spe is mutually beneficial as the offspring carries the parents' genes. Leeches' relationship with "hosts" is parasitic, not symbiotic.

and if it was even possible they would like to be able to terminate pregnancy until the kid turns 5 (and I'm not even exagerating she actualy said that on BlogTv) and this was a simple mentionig of it (the user is actualy a semi-popular youtuber who has recieved shoutouts by several people on the LoR blog panel, I won't mention names but it shouldn't be hard to find).

Again, I don't care what some crazy folks say... just don't project their ideas on my statements, mmmkay?

Whe you mentioned the choice of "whether or not to nourish" as a criteria I assumed that you used the it rather literaly (for which born babys would also fall in to), but even for the uborn kind I believe that such criteria would be detrimental as it encompasses functional unborn.

I honestly don't know where you're getting your ideas from. I don't mention nourishment as a criterion for anything anywhere. I mention the choice to nourish the currently dependent symbiotic organism as being the host's to make. Born children are not in a symbiotic relationship with anyone anymore - anyone can feed them and raise them.

On the topic of morality you are simply using a different definiton

No, I am simply showing what 'morals' are.

I do agree that morality shouldn't be based on the criteria of tradition

Except that that is the very definition of morals.

but I also find justified "socialy beneficial" actions to be part of morality (and that ethics and morality overlap) aparently you push justified parts to ethics.

Ethics is the inquiry into what decision to make when it isn't clear what the "right" path of action is. Morals is an appraisal or condemnation of actions irrespective of the circumstances, therefore without the inquiry. Hence, ethics (roughly) is to morals as science is to guesswork. Maybe sometimes you can guess right, but you will never be able to give a profound explanation as to why.

[1] Mann, Virginia A. - Language Processes: Keys to Reading Disability. (in: Handbook of Learning Disabilities, 2006)

 

[JustBusiness17]

Found it...

The Consciometer: What if scientists could precisely measure when life begins and ends?

I read this article a couple years ago and it really helped me to form my opinions on the subject of abortion. And while they place the appropriate ethical cut off date somewhere around the 23rd week of development, I think an elective abortion 6 months into a pregnancy is pretty ridiculous. It shouldn't take half a year to decide if you're in a good position to become a parent, IMO.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You're glossing over the crucial points of my argument.

A validity of an argument is independent from where it originated.

Nowhere did I claim that the mother couldn't live if the unborn baby died, but you are nonetheless mistaken about this. It can in fact pose a great risk to the mother if the unborn baby dies, for instance in case of an infected abortion. Note that abortion in this sense denotes the simple fact of aborted pregnancy, irrespective of the cause. Read my post, dude. I defined symbiosis in terms of at least one (1) symbiont depending on the other for survival. And you don't really want to tell me you think fetuses could survive on their own, now, do you?

If a horse dies on the water pond where I drink from I could potentialy die that doesn't make te relation symbiotic. The same thing if a fly worm dies inside my eye socket it is not symbioses either. Symbiose implies a mutual dependent or benefitial relation else it is commensal at best, but in this case it is parasitic even if there is a vested genetic interest in it, because the relation is not only limiting the capacity of the host as it also takes her nutrients. You can argue that the point of an individual is to reproduce and give way to the next generation but that doesn't in anyway benefits the life qualities of the individual. Not that it is a negative thing (which was my point) but it is in no way shape or form symbiotic.

For the english speaking users who are currently confused about the usage of the term symbiotic (which is not the same that you are used to) we are aplying it to mean mutualistic symbioses.
And I know case is doing it as well because I'm prety sure he was using the definition from the standart curricula and he also happens to have mentioned this:

Leeches' relationship with "hosts" is parasitic, not symbiotic

I don't care what other people say whose statements have no bearing on mine.

For fuck sake man, I have told you that the post wasn't yours or directed to you specificly, you asserted that it was then you go arround and claiming that I miss represented you. Ofcourse it did, that was what I was granting you when I mentioned that I might missrepresent your opinion when I miss interpreted your statment to mean the given example when I read it literaly. The intention there was for you to provide a clarification of what you actualy meant even tough the original statment wasn't specificly directed to you, and until now I can not give any other interpretation to your words other than that which I have atributed with. In fact what you do is to even further sugest that you actualy meant what I said you meant.

I don't mention nourishment as a criterion for anything anywhere.

Except ofcourse that you did, you even admit so in the next paragraph. My english might be bad, but there is only as much I am willing to atribute the responsabilities of missunderstandings to that.

I mention the choice to nourish the currently dependent symbiotic organism as being the host's to make

Which means that the dicision of abortion should be given to the mother on the justification that she has a choice to nourish it or not. Which is the position I am arguing against all along.
I have given you the benefit of the doubt that I was missrepresenting you but you keep proving me wrong. You may not see it that way but the natural implications of your statments leads exactly that, and now I am openly atributing those propreties that I previously mentioned that might missrepresent your position to actualy mirror your exact position until you can actualy show or clarify that you meant something else different with our statment.

No, I am simply showing what 'morals' are.

No they aren't:
Ethics
morals

 

[Andiferous]

I've been looking at this for a few days and have been a bit wary about stepping in on the debate. But I finally decided to give in and say...

Are there any situations when abortion is really "elective"?

An abortion isn't like getting a facelift or breast augmentation. I'm sure there are the few people who do it without really thinking about it, but I think for the most part it is done after weighing consequences relatively carefully.

 

[Aught3]

I've been looking at this for a few days and have been a bit wary about stepping in on the debate. But I finally decided to give in and say...

Are there any situations when abortion is really "elective"?

An abortion isn't like getting a facelift or breast augmentation. I'm sure there are the few people who do it without really thinking about it, but I think for the most part it is done after weighing consequences relatively carefully.

Possibly a little pedantic The proposition couldn't be 'abortion is immoral' because Phil believes that it can be moral if we are trying to save the mother's life. I don't think the word 'elective' means having an abortion whenever you feel like, there can still be regulation. All it was meant to do was eliminate the cases where abortion was necessary to save lives.

 

[Aught3]

Looks like the debate is going downhill a bit. I find it kind if ironic that Phil is accusing Joe of not supporting his points (which he has) while at the same time asserting things like: 'killing a human being is impermissible is an obvious truth' with no justification.

 

[/b/artleby]

Well, to be fair, that is the fundamental difference of religion and non religion. Religion supposes ethics to be axiomatic, the unquestionable word of God. In order to show that this is wrong you have to disprove the very essence of his religion, and that is a very different debate than the one they are having. Ethical debates cannot proceed when both parties do not agree to the same set of principles.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Looks like the debate is going downhill a bit. I find it kind if ironic that Phil is accusing Joe of not supporting his points (which he has) while at the same time asserting things like: 'killing a human being is impermissible is an obvious truth' with no justification.

Well, to be fair, that is the fundamental difference of religion and non religion. Religion supposes ethics to be axiomatic, the unquestionable word of God. In order to show that this is wrong you have to disprove the very essence of his religion, and that is a very different debate than the one they are having. Ethical debates cannot proceed when both parties do not agree to the same set of principles.

I'm psychic

How can you discuss the morality of abortion before establishing the existence of objective morality? And how can you discuss objective morality before establishing the existence of god? Unless you intend to limit the debate to strictly medically backed evidence, this debate is headed absolutely nowhere...

How about you debate abortion based on the assumptions that there is no god and morality is entirely subjective?

 

[Dustnite]

Phil:
Alright Joe, let me make it very clear for you.

You claimed that my sleeping person analogy was unsound. I responded in my 3rd post. Where is your response to that point?

You claimed that personhood was like how a car is constructed. I responded in my 3rd post. Where is your response to that point?

You compared the unborn to a "stack of raw steel, cowhide, rubber, and miscellaneous electrical components." I responded in my 3rd post. Where is your response to that point?

You compared the unborn to cake mix. I responded in my 3rd post. Where is your response to that?

You used the acorn/tree analogy as representative for the unborn. I responded in my 3rd post with a three point rebuttal. Where is your response to that point?


In all honesty, I do not see where you responded. If you could quote your responses to each of those points, I will be more than happy to concede.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Joe already addressed every one of these points in the post previous to Phil's 3rd post. I re read it three times to be sure. It's really coming down to the "an acorn is a tree" and Phil won't acknowledge that fallacy and refuses to budge.

Where does Phil stand on contraception such as condoms or after morning pills if a person begins from conception? Where would he stand with a rape victim being denied emergency contraception and being forced to carry a pregnancy (http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/10/25/tuscon-rape-victim-denied-morning-after-pill.htm)?

I mean every time I bust a nut is supposedly going to be considered genocide?

 

[Demojen]

For that matter why aren't we all considered God if every time we bust a nut we're creating life?

The sperm don't turn into babies inside of the dude prior to the act but if conception is necessary in order for us to play God then what Phil is suggesting is that a woman does not have any rights to her body.

If men were to run around raping women, they'd be forced to give birth (provided they became pregnant). That is a position I can not reconcile with civil discourse. It's a good thing the law does not think that way here or there would be rioting. Women's rights trump the rights of parasites.

 

[Andiferous]

I've been looking at this for a few days and have been a bit wary about stepping in on the debate. But I finally decided to give in and say...

Are there any situations when abortion is really "elective"?

An abortion isn't like getting a facelift or breast augmentation. I'm sure there are the few people who do it without really thinking about it, but I think for the most part it is done after weighing consequences relatively carefully.

Possibly a little pedantic The proposition couldn't be 'abortion is immoral' because Phil believes that it can be moral if we are trying to save the mother's life. I don't think the word 'elective' means having an abortion whenever you feel like, there can still be regulation. All it was meant to do was eliminate the cases where abortion was necessary to save lives.

Understood.

Of the debate itsef, I am glad Joe brought up a number of conditions for abortion where the mother's life isn't immediately at risk, but where the pregnancy is detrimental over the long term in different ways. I haven't seen philosopher respond to those points directly (then again, I was a bit distracted going over that section).

I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet over this topic because often the arguments are intellectualised and I usually find that those who are making the arguments know very little about the process of pregnancy and childbirth (which seems a bit critical to the whole thing). Pregnancy results in lasting physical implications that can be as slight as strech marks, or as serious as a number of different health conditions.

For example, It's relatively common that women will develop conditions like diabetes and thyroid issues because of their pregnancies. Furthermore, doctors are terrified of prescribing medication to pregnant women, so conditions arising during the pregnancy have limited treatment options. For instance, Hyperemesis gravidarum is extreme pregnancy sickness that is much like a nine month stomach flu and is potentially fatal (Charlotte Bronte died of this), but after the Thalidomide scandal the medical community became wary of prescribing anti-sickness medications to pregnant women. When the fetus can't take the nutrients it requires from the mother's diet due to sickness like the above, the mother's body will essentially sacrifice itself resulting in calcium loss in bones and teeth - and possibly spelling future physical problems.

I could go on, but I see that I'm rambling. My main point is that serious issues often arise during or because of pregnancy. These are sometimes very insidious dangers that can't be narrowed down to an immediate threat to the mother's life - and they might not even surface until after the conclusion of the pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't something a person should agree to over a glass of wine and a few bites of dinner.

Anyway... Both argue well, overall. Nice to see such a well thought out debate from both sides.

::thumbsup:: Joe, so glad you touched on some of those points, because there is quite a bit of mystery and ignorance out there.

 

[Dustnite]

Is this debate still going on?

I think Joe should win this one on the grounds that Philosopher won't admit that he's defining capacity and potential as the same thing. Until that is resolved, this debate is completely stalled.

 

[Philosopher]

Since this debate is over, I want to clear up an area of confusion regarding my statements about acorns and trees (If this post isn't allowed, delete it. However I have seen people post in their comment thread once their debate concluded). Apparently, some people thought I was literally saying that an acorn is a tree.

No, what I said is that an acorn is identical to a tree in that the tree is its adult self. They're identical in that they're the same entity, though just at different stages of development.

Let's take Bob, for example. His infant form and his adult form are obviously different, but they are identical in that they are the same person. As I said before, they're identical in that they're the same entity (Bob), though just at different stages of development (Infant-Adult).

Sheesh.

 

[Case]

Since this debate is over, I want to clear up an area of confusion regarding my statements about acorns and trees (If this post isn't allowed, delete it. However I have seen people post in their comment thread once their debate concluded). Apparently, some people thought I was literally saying that an acorn is a tree.

No, what I said is that an acorn is identical to a tree in that the tree is its adult self. They're identical in that they're the same entity, though just at different stages of development.

Let's take Bob, for example. His infant form and his adult form are obviously different, but they are identical in that they are the same person. As I said before, they're identical in that they're the same entity (Bob), though just at different stages of development (Infant-Adult).

Sheesh.

You should stop treating analogies as arguments when the field you're debating doesn't have anything to do with the one where you draw the analogy from...

1) Identity. "Identical" is only that which is same in every aspect. An acorn is not identical to a tree in some sense, because it requires the whole spectrum of aspects to be the same in order to be identical at all. You are referring to 'likeness'. If something resembles something else in some aspects, it is 'like' that thing with respect to that aspect. If something develops, it can by definition not be identical to its former or later forms. It will be the same organism, but this organism is not identical to earlier/later forms. It loses some features, retains others and develops new ones.

2) The analogy. Easily shown to be wrong. First off, identical twins, despite their name, share 100% of their genome but are not identical, because their genome *expressed* differently (or if you want to be really anal about it, because their bodies aren't made of the same atoms and because they do not occupy the exact same space in the world). They are definitely not the same "person", either. Why is this relevant? Bob isn't Bob no matter what happens. Bob lives in and interacts with the world around him which shapes him. Even if he had a 100% perfect clone running around somewhere, the clone would by definition not be identical to him.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Since this debate is over, I want to clear up an area of confusion regarding my statements about acorns and trees .

The debate is over mostly because your arguments about acorns and trees were garbage, you wouldn't accept that they were garbage, and you were unwilling to make any other point once we hit that point of disagreement. I'm really sorry that you are taking the loss so hard, but we can both console ourselves with the fact that you're destined to lose your next debate, and probably any other one you engage in.

A word of advice? I don't think you understand your own arguments well enough, although you pick good sources to cut and paste from. If you understood your own arguments in a real sense, you'd understand when and how you get backed in to corners. When I forced you to claim that acorns and trees were the same, you got backed into a corner. Instead of taking my invitation to move onto a different point, you kept restating that failed position, and then you decided to restate that failure in this thread as well.

If you want to do better in debates, when you face another situation where you've exhausted all your rhetorical tricks and someone offers to move to a new point, do yourself a favor and "take the draw" instead of trying to win a point that you have already lost.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Regarding the acorn/tree business, I have a thought. This is a matter of perspective; if I might be a bit florid for a minute, it's a matter of thinking with an extra dimension.

Some are treating objects as snapshots. At one moment, an acorn; at another, a tree. You recognize that one came from the other, but they are different objects which are separated by time. However, if you add another dimension to your thinking, your perspective changes. The tree is one contiguous object, changing shape radically throughout its life cycle. It is a thread through time that cannot be discretely separated into stages. The whole four-dimensional shape is the object, and any one stage is completely inseparable from any other.

Now, consider a person. In the viewpoint of Philosopher (if I may be so bold), abortion is a severing of this thread. The entire remaining length, whatever that might entail, is lost. It is the loss of this shape, this probability wave if you will, that is immoral in his eyes. Whatever it might have contained, this shape was human. A loss of a human is, generally, considered immoral.

From a three dimensional perspective, this appears irrelevant and is in fact quite invisible. You note there is a fetus, and then that it is gone. You don't notice a human-shaped void in the world; from this perspective it is nothing. The absence of something is quite impossible to notice. ... Words fail me, but there's a person-shaped hole in the world that is beyond the ability to perceive from a limited perspective.

From a fourth dimensional perspective, the change becomes more obvious. The shape or probability wave has been removed, and everything else shifts around it. A void has been created. There is an absence of a life, a thread torn out and cast away. Whether the result of this act is moral or immoral, for better or worse, maybe be subject to debate.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Regarding the acorn/tree business, I have a thought. This is a matter of perspective; if I might be a bit florid for a minute, it's a matter of thinking with an extra dimension.

Some are treating objects as snapshots. At one moment, an acorn; at another, a tree. You recognize that one came from the other, but they are different objects which are separated by time. However, if you add another dimension to your thinking, your perspective changes. The tree is one contiguous object, changing shape radically throughout its life cycle. It is a thread through time that cannot be discretely separated into stages. The whole four-dimensional shape is the object, and any one stage is completely inseparable from any other.

Now, consider a person. In the viewpoint of Philosopher (if I may be so bold), abortion is a severing of this thread. The entire remaining length, whatever that might entail, is lost. It is the loss of this shape, this probability wave if you will, that is immoral in his eyes. Whatever it might have contained, this shape was human. A loss of a human is, generally, considered immoral.

From a three dimensional perspective, this appears irrelevant and is in fact quite invisible. You note there is a fetus, and then that it is gone. You don't notice a human-shaped void in the world; from this perspective it is nothing. The absence of something is quite impossible to notice. ... Words fail me, but there's a person-shaped hole in the world that is beyond the ability to perceive from a limited perspective.

From a fourth dimensional perspective, the change becomes more obvious. The shape or probability wave has been removed, and everything else shifts around it. A void has been created. There is an absence of a life, a thread torn out and cast away. Whether the result of this act is moral or immoral, for better or worse, maybe be subject to debate.

You should have really read through the whole debate, because I addressed this aspect, although only fleetingly. The arrow of time only goes in one direction. It is meaningless to make absolute and specific claims of the future based on the past or present, because the potential paths of that arrow are infinite or close enough to it. The point is that there's a line from an embryo to an adult, but that line can only be traced once the adult exists. You can't start from the embryo and claim that you know anything about the potential adult at the end of the line, because that line only goes from the adult back into the past.

The "person-shaped hole in the world" is nonsense, because that person never actually existed. If I take an acorn and crush it before it can start becoming a tree, there is no "tree-shaped hole in the world." The confusion comes in mistaking hindsight for foresight. What we can see looking at what DID happen is nothing like what we can see looking forward at what MIGHT happen.

 

[Philosopher]

Case,

1) Identity. "Identical" is only that which is same in every aspect. An acorn is not identical to a tree in some sense, because it requires the whole spectrum of aspects to be the same in order to be identical at all. You are referring to 'likeness'. If something resembles something else in some aspects, it is 'like' that thing with respect to that aspect. If something develops, it can by definition not be identical to its former or later forms. It will be the same organism, but this organism is not identical to earlier/later forms. It loses some features, retains others and develops new ones.

2) The analogy. Easily shown to be wrong. First off, identical twins, despite their name, share 100% of their genome but are not identical, because their genome *expressed* differently (or if you want to be really anal about it, because their bodies aren't made of the same atoms and because they do not occupy the exact same space in the world). They are definitely not the same "person", either. Why is this relevant? Bob isn't Bob no matter what happens. Bob lives in and interacts with the world around him which shapes him. Even if he had a 100% perfect clone running around somewhere, the clone would by definition not be identical to him.

By "identical," I mean the same being. I am identical to my infant self in that we are the same person -- we remain the same person through change. Of course, we're quite different in that we at different stages of development, but fundamentally we're still the same entity. Or, picture it this way. Suppose my name is Henry. Let's say that I go on a long trip to a distance land. Around 15 years later, I return. Now, is the Henry that returned the same Henry that left, are we still the same person? Well, of course. Do we look different? Obviously, but we remain the same person through change. If we go with the radical perdurantism that you're suggesting, then the statement "I was once in middle school" would be false, since I was never in middle school, but another being at a different stage of development. I am wholly present at every moment of my existence -- I endure though change, such that though my infant self may share physical characteristics when compared to my teenage self, we're still the same person.

We remain who we are through change. If I shave off my hair, I'm still the same person I was before I shaved off my hair. What changed was not essential properties, but accidental properties. Otherwise, we would literally be different people every second as cells die/reproduce. Statements like "I went to the store yesterday" is false, since that "I" no longer exists.

I don't see how this is so hard for you all to understand... Am I saying that an acorn is literally the same thing as a tree in that it shares all its properties? Obviously not. What I am saying is that they are the same entity in that they are in different stages of development (Just like how I can look in a photo album containing my baby pictures and say "Hey, that's me at X years old!)

_______

The debate is over mostly because your arguments about acorns and trees were garbage, you wouldn't accept that they were garbage, and you were unwilling to make any other point once we hit that point of disagreement. I'm really sorry that you are taking the loss so hard, but we can both console ourselves with the fact that you're destined to lose your next debate, and probably any other one you engage in.

A word of advice? I don't think you understand your own arguments well enough, although you pick good sources to cut and paste from. If you understood your own arguments in a real sense, you'd understand when and how you get backed in to corners. When I forced you to claim that acorns and trees were the same, you got backed into a corner. Instead of taking my invitation to move onto a different point, you kept restating that failed position, and then you decided to restate that failure in this thread as well.

If you want to do better in debates, when you face another situation where you've exhausted all your rhetorical tricks and someone offers to move to a new point, do yourself a favor and "take the draw" instead of trying to win a point that you have already lost.

Joe, I don't see why you're so hostile. If you want to treat the debate as if I lost, then that's fine with me (On a separate note, I happen to think that was a decisive victory along with several of my colleagues). Putting aside the acorn-tree business for a minute, you didn't respond to my other arguments (Otherwise, my last post would have been easy for you to answer). I didn't see a response to my criticism of several of your analogies (comparing the unborn to a lump of materials/how a car was constructed), nor did I see a response to my counterarguments of several of your points.

Now, none of you have understood the response to the acorn-tree analogy that I gave (Moreover, you guys have only been attacking point 1... I offered a three point refutation of that argument -- what about points 2 and 3?) The acorn is the oak tree in the sense that it is the same being, just at different stages in development. Just how I was once five years old, an oak tree was once an acorn. They're still the same entity, just at different stages of development This is basic metaphysics.

This will be my last post on the topic. If anybody wants to talk about it, feel free to challenge me to a debate (I prefer debates because I will get ganged up if I attempt to discuss an issue openly).

 

[Baranduin]

Philosopher, the mistake you are committing is to think that, since there's a gradual change between two states, then both extremes share the same essence. That's your first fallacy. There's a gradual evolution from Latin to French, but you won't argue that French is just a maturated version of Latin, but their essence is the same, would you?. You can say that both are romance languages, as they share some common features. You can classify them as Indoeuropean. But they are still completely different languages, only linked by their history.

The same applies for persons: there's a gradual change from a baby to a kid to a teenager and so on. But that doesn't mean that they are the same person. They have different values, preferences, ideas, priorities, perspectives, responsibilities... There has been a gradual change from Robby to Rob to Robert, but you might not be able to blame Robert for the things that Robby did. Neither you treated Robby the same way that you treat Robert.

So your first fallacy is that two extremes of a continuum share the same "essence", because there's a slippery slope. That's false.


The second fallacy is a false dichotomy: either they're the same thing, or the change should be sudden. That's false: changes can be gradual. French evolved over the course of generations, and it still does. Unless you want to argue that Latin and French share the same essence, you have to agree that a thing can become a entirely different thing of the same kind through slight changes over time. Your example of we being different as our cells die/reproduce is laughable and extremely ridiculous; it's like if vestigiality couldn't happen in evolution, or social inertia in political transitions. But that doesn't mean that the government before the transition has the same essence than the one after, or that we can't speak about different biological taxa because their members share some features with some remote ancestors.


You're committing a linguistic fallacy there too, since you are assuming that language (concretely, English language) represents an accurate description of the 'metaphysical world' (assuming that such a oxymoron made sense). But a language only represents the point of view of its speakers - it doesn't say anything about the real world. Your argument about "I was / my mother / etc" is only a handy way to speak, relying on the assumption that persons change gradually and that what you learnt about them at a given instant is still valid in the present. But that doesn't mean that those persons are the same, and persons can indeed change that suddenly, making them unrecognizable. Indeed, depending on what Henry did in that remote location, he could be safely considered another, different person.
We use the same linguistic artifact when we say "you americans" or "you europeans", on the assumption that all - or maybe most - americans or europeans share some common traits. But that doesn't mean there's an americaness or europeness, shared by them all. It's just an economic way to speak, not an accurate description of the universe.


The forth and most evident error is that you're relying on "essences" as if they were something real and meaningful. They're not, unless you have some evidence to support that claim. A hole doesn't really exist - there's nothing special making a hole -, nor does darkness or phonons. We use names for those things because is useful, not because there's an essence making those things as if they were something. Unless, of course, you have some evidence that souls exist; the burden of proof is onto you. And yes, if all your cells changed at once, you'd be a different person at every instant. But they don't, and that's what creates the impression of a continuum, and makes handy to treat you as the same entity.


The last point would be your confusion about "evidence" and "argument"; but since they are two extremes of a continuum, is not surprising that you merge them, presenting arguments instead of evidence.

This will be my last post on the topic.

Running away? I think you realize how feeble your arguments are, insisting to debate one single person at once, knowing that you've studied (or learnt, which is a different part of the spectrum) every argument and counterargument and that your opponent probably don't; your condescendence in both debates, and in your general messages, is obvious. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a problem to address every issue properly, in a general discussion instead of a formal debate. Specially when you've already failed to make your point in a previous debate. Or are you asking for a "bis" of your debate with IJ? Which would be the point of that?