Abortion and Preference Utilitarianism
At what point does a fetus become a person in the philosophical sense? I've always thought it was when they became conscious and sentient. But I recently came across the argument that one might be justified in killing someone who is braindead in a coma and who has a chance of waking up if its okay to kill fetuses that are not aware and cannot feel. It seems to me that there is a solution to this. If we adopt the idea of a moral ledger in which unsatisfied preferences are entered then one can tie those to the braindead person in the coma. They shouldn't be killed because they have not yet satisfied all of their existing preferences, which still exist despite one's mental condition. And btw Peter Singer came up with the moral ledger bit. I'm not that smart.
Comments (383)
Pregnancies don't magically happen.
The vast majority of abortions is performed on people who voluntarily engaged in intercourse and were fully aware of the risks. They accepted the risk and subsequently chose to kill a living being rather than carry responsibility for their actions. I don't see how one would justify that.
An attempt at justifying abortions that do not belong to that category would be interesting.
Quoting Tzeentch
Abortion is a horrible thing. It is almost equally horrible to consider pregnancy or birth a "risk". In fact they go together. As if having children is a punishment strangely visited only on women for having intercourse.
Abortion is the desperate measure of a woman in a hostile society that gives her or her children no value or a negative value. Start there, and moralise the society that so disrespects life as to put its women in such a position.
Would you argue that a justification for abortion arises out of the existence of an autonomous person's rights? Because ending a human's life might be argued to be an act that prevents an intrinsically valuable being capable of having preferences and feeling pleasure from entering the world. At the very least conservatives seem to put this kind of value on the fetus's life. How would you argue against this?
I'm on board with the first part.
As for the second, I don't think societal norms can serve as justification for people's behavior. At most they can give us insight into their motivation or reasoning.
I don't think the unenlightened is arguing that abortion is okay because its fashionable or because its socially acceptable; I believe they're saying that women are treated terribly often times and that they face hard choices. But correct me if I'm wrong.
In the case of voluntary intercourse by individuals aware of the possible consequences:
Killing a living being is a tragic matter.
So,
Needlessly putting oneself in a situation where one may have to kill a living being is immoral.
Is it wrong to rip a carrot out of the ground and eat it? You might have to swear off vegetables.
But its a vegetable. It cannot feel; it is not sentient or conscious. If you think its wrong to kill fetuses that are non-persons then you must have a problem with killing vegetables, or all life. You must also abstain from eating meat. I don't see any tragedy in eating a head of broccoli.
Yes, you rightly change the wording, from 'risk' to the more neutral 'consequence'. But it is very little improvement. Are you the consequence of a fuck? Is that what a person is? Please, stop thinking like this in the first place, because the death of consequences will follow automatically from seeing people as consequences.
Well I respect you then. Many are very inconsistent on that point.
I don't think Tzeentch is depreciating the value of fetuses, but rather the autonomy of women. He just doesn't want anything killed.
I think he is a typical anti-abortionist that wants to lay down the law without taking an iota of responsibility. And that's another abortion debate aborted.
Why arent you advocating for all the tragic loss of plant life? Bugs? Bacteria? Many magnitudes more bacteria die that all other life combined, so you are ignoring the greatest tragic loss of life in favour of focusing on the many magnitudes less tragic loss of life that are the abortion numbers. Why is that?
I saw that yes.
Nowhere did I state that people shouldn't be allowed to make immoral decisions, so I don't think I am doing any harm to anyone's autonomy.
You didn't answer my earlier question. What's your argument against human life being intrinsically valuable because that life can eventually feel pleasure and have preferences?
Most argue that a woman's autonomy outweighs the fetus's life. You claimed that women should "bear the consequences", which I can only assume means carry the child to term. That, whether or not its correct, remains to be an erosion of autonomy. You did use the word should after all.
lol I feel stupid. Yes he should be focusing on those other things.
He is casting a moral judgement, not a prescription for what a women should be allowed or not allowed to do.
Lol, missed that comment. You aren’t stupid, as evidence I submit that you recognised your...oversight there, and further Id suggest this makes you a good, rational, critical thinker.
Tragedy is a fact of life.
However, humans have the unique ability to act in ways that cause it, or avoid it as much as possible. That is why my own actions, and human action in general, interest me.
Ah, I see. So would it be fair to say the answer to my question is that you are focusing on abortion because it is there that moral judgements can be made and that this isnt the case with bacteria?
I don't argue it. My argument is more simple; if you do not want abortions (and no one thinks they are a good thing worth getting pregnant for), if you value the unborn highly as most pregnant women do and most men do, then you should value the women who carry them and the children that they become. You cannot reasonably make them other peoples risk, consequence, fault, responsibility, problem, and also complain about how they deal with their problems. A society that does not care for the child and the mother has no standing from which to moralise about them, any more than a society that drives women into prostitution has any standing from which to moralise about prostitutes.
Well he expressly stated that he isnt doing harm to anyones autonomy, and that people are free to be immoral. I think that covers him, but of course I could be missing something too. Its a fine line maybe, but it seems valid to me.
Well I'm a white man so maybe I'm moralizing here, but I don't think that no one cares about the child; in fact I would argue that people care too much about fetuses, being they're non-persons for much of their existence. No one has these kinds of attitudes about factory farming. More to the point, I agree that it should be a personal decision on the part of the woman and that a better foster care system should be set up. But I think its okay to have these kinds of debates. But even if women are driven to get abortions by society, that doesn't make abortion moral. So I guess that's where we disagree. Nevertheless it might make condemning women extremely distasteful.
Of course, yes, and by participating in the abortion thread you are showing where your focus is, or is that not the case?
Just to be clear, Im being sincere and not trying to trap you or use your words against you. Your perspective interests me and it seems youve put some thought into its consistency, so Im inquiring in good faith. (Which is not to say I wont disagree at some point)
Sure.
Ok, so Im just wondering why you are not more focused on the greater loss of life of bacteria or plants. You implied it has to do with them not being eligible for moral judgement while in the case of abortion you can do so with the mother at least. Is that right?
Quoting DingoJones
I may have implied this?
Humans possess a unique reasoning faculty, which I think is required for something to be considered a moral agent.
Ok, so the distinction is moral agency.
Ok, so back to all loss of life being tragic. Why is that? If its a part of life as you say, then its not under the province of moral agency is it?
Life and death are natural, and on their own neither moral nor immoral. Perhaps it would be better to say all premature death is tragic. But then again, when an elder dies naturally of old age it may cause grief in their relatives, and is that not tragic?
The matter of morality, at least, becomes more clear when a human decides to voluntarily end life prematurely, whether that be by stomping on a bug that did them no harm, or chopping down a tree for no reason, or killing an unwanted fetus.
I see. So your morality is intuition based?
Quoting Tzeentch
I should have asked before...how are you using “tragedy” here? If death and tragedy are both natural, how can an abortion be morally wrong on the basis of a tragic loss of life?
Quoting Tzeentch
Thats the really tough bit, what reasons count as good ones?
The idea that life is valuable is based on my intuition and the observation of living things.
My concept of morality takes that idea as a starting point, but utilizes reason from that point onward.
Quoting DingoJones
Abortion is not immoral based on the tragic loss of life. What may make abortion immoral in this context is the willful and conscious decision to cause this tragedy.
If you're asking "why is death tragic?", it is as I said before. It is because life is valuable. I can make that plausible, but I (obviously) can't prove that. I don't think it is an unreasonable starting point, though.
Quoting DingoJones
This ties into the willful/voluntary part of my definition. Here are some ideas: Death of another being may be an unwanted side-effect of preserving one's own life, i.e. self-defense or survival.
Sometimes, one may be forced to choose between two tragic decisions, in which case one will choose the 'lesser of the two evils'.
For some people, death is a preferable alternative to life, but they are no longer able to make this decision themselves, i.e. euthanasia.
Roughly the categories:
- Preservation of one's own life
- 'Force majeure'
- Considerations for the well-being of the other.
In my discussion with I have discussed why I believe life is valuable and death is tragic. Obviously, I cannot give you a line of reasoning to prove life has objective value, so I don't pretend to have one.
If you require one, or are not interested in discussing morality, then I am afraid you are better off finding another conversational partner.
Quoting tim wood
I disagree. There may be a desire, but I don't believe there to be a compulsion. At least, not in healthy individuals. A rational agent can and should temper their desires through reason.
I also think an appeal to instincts is a slippery slope argument.
Quoting tim wood
I consider all life to be valuable. That includes plants, insects, even microbes.
Quoting tim wood
No.
Quoting tim wood
No.
Quoting tim wood
No.
Quoting tim wood
A tragic fact. Is the suggested follow up "So why not kill another?"
Quoting tim wood
Unfortunate.
Quoting tim wood
What people can and cannot do is not a part of my argument.
I've touched upon this question when talking with . All living beings seem to have a desire to continue living, and death causes grief.
I considered that perhaps it would be better to say 'All premature death is tragic,' since death can also be natural and is, like you say, inevitable. However, even natural deaths may cause grief, and as such I still see it as something tragic. Tragic in its classic sense would meaning something along the lines of 'sad, but inevitable.'
Quoting tim wood
Just to give you some insight in where I am coming from; I think valuing life leads to moral behavior, and I think moral behavior leads to happiness (of both oneself and others). I am fully aware that there is no way to provide proof of that to someone who is skeptical, so instead I appeal to an intuition that seems to be shared by almost all living things. People can disregard that at their own peril and insist that life has no value to them. I think that will lead them to unhappiness.
I keep animals out of a discussion of morality, though, since I don't see animals as moral agents.
Quoting tim wood
These are interesting questions, for sure. But also extremely hard to answer. It would deserve its own thread.
Quoting tim wood
Maybe. Consciousness definitely seems like it has some unique qualities found nowhere else, as far as we know. However, I'm not sure if I would consider it is what makes life valuable, unless we broaden our idea of what consciousness is.
You’ve given me a lot to think about, thanks. :up:
I agree. One can only introduce people to a different point of view and hope they come to the same conclusions as you do.
This problem also arises for purchaser of products and services, given the behavior of many corporations.
People seem to be very focused on women taking responsibility for sex, but generally not so interested in what their tax dollars and purchases contribute too when it comes to innocent lives.
By the way, I am in favor of men taking responsibility for sex just as much as women.
I don't think I suggested that anyone should stop discussing abortion. I don't know where that came from.Quoting TzeentchThat's good, though of coure they can't. But to the extent they can, they should, yes.
How so?
A baby in womb, I think also has mental phases and half grown would be enough mental activity to be classed as a person.
Rough estimate.
Because a doctor is supposed to save lives and a mother is not supposed to kill her kids. I think we should respect fetuses, chimps, Neanderthals, homo Erecti, and all which fall within that continuum. I don't think there is a gray area on that. Perhaps there never was nor will be an organism that is not clearly within or without "the limit" of what a primate is. At least, we should act suchly
It's more like a pact.
She should also be careful, and not lead men astray, for example.
At the monent it's legal to have sex just for the abortion. Of course it's ok if the fetus isn't hurt badly.
Preventing birth can be done smartly.
I never implied they weren't.
Quoting tim wood
I'm not interested in what laws have to say, nor am I interested in telling people what they can and can't do.
With that said, I have an opinion about what I, under the circumstances I have specified, perceive as immoral behavior and why.
:up:
There is only opinion of these matters. It's really about the best way to live and handle this. From your pro-choice perspective, I dont see you having any case against someone who says we can kill children until they are of the age of reason
Can the doctor and the mother kill the child one hour after birth? Who is to say it's human? DNA? A fetus has that
It doesn't interest me. I think it has little to add to discussions of morality. If you're that adamant about it, give me a reason to reconsider.
That's a bit simple, isn't it?
People say words I don't like, so there must be something wrong with them.
That's not what I said. You are now making a claim that that's why I think the way I do. Which is fine. I made a claim about them. You made a claim about me. But in the structure of your response - even if unintended - it looks like you are summing up my position and that's not my position.
I understand the question and it's stupid as dirt with shit in it. Saying you can kill them before birth but not after is completely arbitrary. It's no different from a Nazi saying the configuration of a Jews genes means they are not human and can be killed
Everything you can think of is opinion. It's about the best way to live in society. Abortion nowadays is like slavery in the Civil War, except worse. Same lame arguments used: "They're different"
Besides the paragraph above it specifically mentioning a legal case?
But lets move on.
Quoting tim wood
You won't have to take my "non-answer" for it, because it's in the reply itself:
Quoting Tzeentch
And it's a position I have repeated several times in this thread already.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
.... Moving on.
Quoting tim wood
I don't belong to any camp. I won't carry a label that implies I'm in favor of killing unborn children. I think it's a horrible thing. At the same time, I am not for any kind of "control", governmental or otherwise, because it would create a situation that is possibly even worse.
Preference utilitarianism can also be used to argue against abortion. Any living organism has at least one clear preference: to stay alive. Not much consciousness is needed to have a preference. An insect clearly prefers to eat, that’s why it does it, and a fetus would have at least as much will as an insect.
Utilitarianism argues for the maximation of happiness, and happiness is the same as fulfillment of preferences, so not much has been changed by adding the word “preference”.
Any moral act aims at increasing happiness in the future, that is, the act comes first and the consequence, happiness, follows later. The fact that the happiness of the fetus will not be realized until later, after birth, does not make it a special case compared to a being that’s already born. The state of well-being that one hopes to create by acting morally is always just a potential, and the fetus as a potential moral object makes it no different from any other moral object. If it’s bad to steal an object that would later have made a person happy, it’s also bad to take away a life that would later have made the fetus happy. (I don’t care if you call the fetus a person or not. The point is that the fetus and the born infant is one continuous being.)
I don't believe a fetus can indeed desire to be alive. But correct me if I'm wrong. And it seems wise to me to demarcate human life and personhood. Not doing this is speciesist as Cows are more like cognitively developed humans than fetuses yet we torture and slaughter them without a thought. .
I assume at the end of your post you refer the paradox of the heap. I wrote this somewhere else:
The need to define fetal personhood does not indeed lead to a paradox of the heap, as some might suggest; changes in predicates of potential personhood occur at specific points in fetal development, regardless of the fact that it remains genetically identical throughout its development. These predicates are not vague; they are quite specific. This applies if you grant that being human doesn't constitute being a person per say, but rather self-awareness, consciousness, viability, etc. Thus one can retain the belief that a fetus is not a person with a right to life.
And no, fulfilling preferences is not the same as being happy. Perhaps I work hard writing good poetry when really what would maximize my pleasure would be eating a chocolate bar. Both fulfill preferences, but one results in greater happiness.
As for the meat of your argument: according to you it must me wrong to use contraception because one is preventing a being with a valuable future from being born. The same goes for celibacy.
It desires to be alive in the same way as an insect desires to be alive. An insect struggles for its life. I don’t mean desire as in being conscious of the desire.
Quoting Aleph Numbers
I don’t care about defining personhood, so the paradox of the heap is irrelevant. The fetus is a being (however you define it) that has the definite potential of becoming a rational self-conscious being (it will for sure if only it is allowed to live). If there is a decisive moment in its development, it is when it becomes self-conscious which happens long after the baby is born, so if “personhood” was decisive, it might be morally acceptable to kill three-month old infants.
Quoting Aleph Numbers
Fulfilled preference, not fulfilling, is happiness. When you get what you really want, you are happy. Note that it’s not about what you just think you want, because you may be wrong about that. You may think you want money more than anything, but you don’t really want it since even if you get it, you won’t be happy.
Quoting Aleph Numbers
You can’t do anything to something that doesn’t exist, including preventing its future, because there is no it. The it that is a fetus already exists and it’s the same being that later will become for example a three-year old kid.
I certainly agree.
I also think, that David Benatar is right about on abortion, at least at the most part. I´m against killing sentient human being. Demarcation is usually hard, Benatar´s point of view is that aborting the fetus since to about 28 weeks from conception is morally obligatory act. After that time line, according to Benatar, it´s no longer abortion, but killing sentient human being.
I´m not sure is the (about) 28 weeks the right demarcation line. Anyway, my point of view is that at least at first couple months after the conception the abortion isn't just a righteous act, but a moral obligation.
Some people of course disagree. One of them is already deceased utilitarian philosopher R.M. Hare.
My thoughts on abortion and R.M. Hare´s Golden Rule
Now, let us take a moment and touch upon one of the most interesting value ethical debates of the past few decades: the discussion on abortion. In the last few decades, the justification of abortion has been one of the most central questions in value ethical discussions. Among the most noted abortion debate openers has been philosopher R.M. Hare. Hare’s basic premise is the principle of life preservation which cannot be breached with abortion. The concept of 'a potential person' lies at the core of Hare’s argumentation. He states that a foetus, or even a newly conceived egg cell, is a potential person, and therefore an abortion would be a crime against this potential human being. At the same time, arguments have been made against euthanasia (and for it) by stating that life preservation is also a value overriding the will of an existing person – even in the event that this person personally wants euthanasia.What is common to all these instances of debate is the underlying assumption of life as something desirable as such, and most of all, as a self-evident value. According to Hare, our duty – assuming that we are happy that our lives have not been terminated at the foetus stage – is not to terminate the life of a "potential person" living to see its foetal stage.(Hare, Abortion and the Golden Rule. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4, 1975, 201-222) Not taking a stand on whether or not Hare abuses the concept of "duty", one must take into account three important aspects.
1. The assumption that we are happy to be alive at the moment does certainly not cover all living individuals, even if most living individuals consider their life to be a positive thing.
2. Even if happiness about life were to be a universal viewpoint, it cannot be used as an argument in concluding whether or not abortion would have been a better choice with regard to happiness. Hence, one cannot know whether it is betterto be than not to be.
3. A noteworthy aspect is also the fact that bringing about life – which in this case, if successful, means creating a self-conscious human being, a person – does not mean merely bringing about life. It is somewhat rational to assume that a forthcoming conscious person will come to die one day. Furthermore, whether or not this is a shift back to the state or non-state which prevailed before the person, there is no clear knowledge of the nature of this shift beyond the fact that the human being ceases to exist as a biological organism. Bringing about life is also a necessary condition for its ending – or termination.
Hare’s argument therefore is that life is likely to be a better state of affairs than the lack thereof. What a bold and peculiar argument! And one that should be used to justify obligation towards a potentially forthcoming individual. Having said that, it is somewhat evident that our naturalistic attitude drives us to investigate the questions of existence in a highly biocentric manner, with an emphasis on the(presumed) value of life and by perhaps regarding it as a “given value.” And yet: why has this reasoning not been taken to its natural conclusion by comparing the relation of life and non-life and the arguments and circumstances in which it is justified to value one over the other, if either?
In the viewpoint represented by Hare, sperm is not yet a potential person – even though it can be seen as one if potentiality is defined in a broad sense. Therefore, it does not possess the rights of a potential person. Following Hare’s model, one does not have the duty of “giving” life to the sperm. But what about the right to do so? If a human being does not have the duty of giving life to sperm in the form of human life, does one have the right to do so? Hare does not approach this question.
As stated, a sperm is not a potential person in the sense discussed by Hare, and therefore our related actions are not directed at a person or a potential person. In other words, our actions towards the sperm are relatively insignificant to it. Having a child is an action in which decisions are made concerning an individual’s life. The act of having a child has an object, a potentially forthcoming human being. This individual should not be perceived as a person, however. My purpose is not to imply that the object as a person exists at the moment of conception, but having a child affects an individual’s life: the object of this action is a child to be born, and that child usually fulfils the criteria of a person. Therefore, it can be concluded that the act of having a child has an object, but this object is not a person at the moment of conception. Hare’s hypothesis is that life itself is a value, the creation of which holds no ethical problems, whereas the prevention and especially termination thereof holds several. Biocentrism is of course our naturalistic and natural attitude which has developed during evolution, but it does not imply anything about values as such.
So, as usual, I substitute my understanding of what should be (Natural Law), for that which "we" deem to be the case (law). I think a woman should have the unfettered right to do whatever the hell she wants with her "baby" up until parturition. At that point, I think she has a duty of care, even if that is only turning the spawn over to someone else who will care.
In that sense, a baby becomes a person in my philosophical sense when it ceases to be inside the mother's body.
As to the person in a coma, again, that revolves around a duty assumed, when it starts and when it ends. That duty can be legal, contractual, ethical, whatever; it relates to the people involved. Pick your poison.
Like I said - or at least mean - usually demarcation line is hard to set at some particular point, and only at that point.
But i think you make harsh, unjustified leap from zygote being something, which have intrinsically value (my words, my definition) like sleeping person or people with Down syndrome should have.
About moral facts, I´m not sure if there are any (in the word´s purest meaning). No, I´m not moral relativist. If there are moral facts, I don´t see there are any logical/empirical etc. way to absolutely proof them. And then again, moral facts or moral values are far more important than some trivial facts you can easily proof.
Saying that, I think killing people is wrong and extreme violation against person´s sovereignty and autonomy. That is a moral value I truly stand for. But I don´t believe that my that point of view, or any, can proof the way mathematical theorems can. But for me, my moral values are more meaningful than some mathematical theorems. (And while I earlier said about your unjustified leap about from zygote to killing sleeping person or someone with Down syndrome, I know that my point of view is just my point of view, like your is yours. Either one is not a scientific fact). But that´s another topic, anyway.
On the range, we'd say when she drops. Once the kid is out of the women's body.
Quoting tim wood
I don't recall ever reading Roe v. Wade or Blackmun's reasoning. I've just heard it's well shy of birth so it's too conservative for me.
Quoting tim wood
To kill her baby, anytime while it's in her body, any way she chooses, under any circumstances.
Quoting tim wood
She has the right to keep it if she wants. Others should not have a say until it's out of her body. At that time, I think she has a duty to either care for it, or turn it over to the state.
I have to add, that logic is logic. And tautology is a tautology. And some arguments are better - and some worse - in pure logical way.
And I correct my recent statement: The absence of absolute proof of moral facts doesn't necessarily mean that there isn´t them (moral facts).
She cannot.
Quoting tim wood
Those acting at her direction cannot. As to those not acting at her direction, that decision would be up to the state. If the state deems life to begin at conception (or before), and if someone other than the mother and/or those acting at her direction, kills the baby in utero, I reckon that could be murder if the state wants it to be. I express no opinion on that. I would, however, be interested in the woman's opinion; Was she assaulted, battered? Are their civil damages she might be entitled to as a result of the loss?
Quoting tim wood
I'll not ask you to tell me what Blackmun said. You've proven yourself capable of thinking on your own two feet.
I´m not sure that I can follow your logic.
Do you mean that killing, let´s say five days old tsygote, is a bad thing?
And if so, is it as bad thing that killing someone already born person with Down syndrome?
Our point of views strongly disagree.
Five days old human zygote is not sentient human being. One very essential point when we value
something is have that being or object ability to suffer, to feel.
Human zygote may have human DNA, but it doesn´t have emotions, feelings etc.
It´s absurd to be against abortion and then support animal industry for culinaristic reasons. Animals are sentient beings - unlike 5 days old human zygotes - and could suffer and will suffer also at this very moment. I think that´s obscene. Some religious movements even think contraception is wrong, because they consider ovum and spermatozoon as human life also, and terminating them is also killing human being, or at least potential human being. (They eat industrial meat and eggs with smile in their face, what a paradox!)
Our opinions are quite opposite, we both give great value for human life, but we define human life different.
Ability to feel emotions is one criteria, not the only one. A living person usually have also, for example, future plans, some interest for current and future life etc. These things exist, however, is the person sleeping or not. And I don´t believe that sleeping person doesn´t feel anything.
And for my point of view is not essential is somebody reasonable person, essential point is - but not the only one - can she/he feel emotions (pleasure, pain and so on).
Quoting evtifron
I agree, that the part of the problem is the way we use words. My point is when you kill fetus at early stage of pregnancy, you are not killing a person.
I don't think it is arbitrary at all. The "before" involves the integrity of the mother's body and decisions related thereto. The "after" has removed her body from the equation and kicked us into considerations of the state's desires and the integrity of the child's body.
Before = her. After = whatever.
Nor would technological advances, C-sections, paternal rights, blah blah blah, have any impact on this demarcation.
On the range, an un-branded calf is called slick. The mother could be slick too. Kind of like humans: We don't belong to a rancher. But to answer your question, it would be it's own self before it hits the ground, while it is airborne, on the way down, once it is out. Of course most cows I've seen and calves I've pulled have been on the ground. So, the distinction is in or out.
Quoting tim wood
That's not my notion. My only concern is the integrity of the woman's body. If the state wants to attach personhood before, during, at or after conception, in the womb out on the ground, or as some biologists might argue, once the entity is capable of reproduction (puberty) is the state's business. But the woman's body trump's whatever concern or notion the state might have.
The state can have it's fictions, but my notion is anything but amoral.
Quoting tim wood
I don't get your stew/salt argument, but I will say the problem is indeed solved, and without "Procrustean parameters." I had to look that up, but if it means "(especially of a framework or system) enforcing uniformity or conformity without regard to natural variation or individuality" then my position is gold. For my position is distinctly reliant upon natural variation and individuality.
A fetus, not a sentient human being.
, which defends it. There you see that legal abortion, except extreme questionable cases and situations which are not the rule, is not logical, therefore technically illegal. As you can see, I am rather focusing in human life and that is sufficient to discard abortion. Person as a concept is tricky, malleable and used to confuse and not to talk about the real thing. Human life begins at the conception, legally, biologically, philosophically, as you can prove by studying yourself.
In early stage of pregnancy, a fetus isn´t sentient being. After moment of the conception, there is a cell lump. It´s quite analogous to compare it to embryo of a cow.
We don´t give human rights for cow´s embryos, we will raise cows to be eaten.
Already born cow, something in our culinaristic menu, is far more sentient being than a human fetus in early stages of pregnancy.
In that state, abortion is obligatory act. That potential forthcoming child never have to be born.
Exactly: 'if you didn't do anything': that's the whole point here. It's only if you don't abort the foetus that the foetus turns into something that has moral significance, i.e. a being capable of feeling pleasure and pain, a being to which it matters how it is treated. But if you abort the foetus before it becomes sentient, the potential is never realised, so the foetus never becomes something that has moral significance, i.e. never becomes something to which it matters how it is treated. That is precisely why it is not immoral to abort pre-sentient foetuses.
No, it doesn't. Suppose that there was only one man left alive, and he was so brain-damaged that he could never feel anything again. It would not matter to him if he died. His death would only matter to him if he could somehow regain sentience and start to feel again. And of course, since he's the last man left alive, it can't matter to anyone else either. So the death of such a man would not matter at all, because there is no-one for it to matter to; it would therefore have no value, positive or negative. This shows that human life and death only matter, only have value, insofar as sentience is involved. It is sentience that confers value, and without sentience, there is no value. Human life in itself has no value; it only acquires value where there is sentience.
The view that human life has a moral value per se is, in practice, a covert species prejudice. People who say that human life has moral value generally believe that any human life has more moral value than any non-human life. This is irrational, anti-scientific, and immoral. There's no scientific or rational basis for the attachment of value to human life rather than non-human life; humans are just a species of animal, one among many. Humans just think they matter more than other species because they're biased in their own favour. It's like white people thinking they matter more than black people: it's fundamentally immoral.
If the fact that two people who were nearly aborted turned out to be happy is a good argument against abortion, then presumably the fact that a lot of people who were not aborted turned out to be unhappy is a good argument for abortion.
In fact neither is a good argument. You can't have people having babies just on the off-chance that they might grow up to be happy. They might not.
Next points you've written are not even arguments , you digress saying "humans think", which is rather nonsense, and then you get completely off the track talking about white and black, which is absolutely nonsense and has nothing to do. It's easy, Morality implies the value of human life objectively. If you are against that, that's called ammoral and the actions guided by that unreasonable way of thinking, if that can be said to be thinking, is immoral.
In my opinion the question, is a person intelligent or is she/he not, is not relevant for her/his value. The ability to suffer and feel emotions are relevant, however.
"I will repeat once again the zygote is the stage of HUMAN development if you do not kill a person at the age of 5 when he is still developing, why should you kill him before birth?"
For my point of view, the point that is child still developing, is irrelevant. Child has reached the state of human being much earlier.
Like I said before, the demarcation line is always hard to set absolutely correct. When the fetus becomes human? David Benatar says it´s about 28 weeks. Some people say for sure, that fetus becomes human earlier.
Saying that, my point of view, to kill a fetus - make an abortion - in first couple of months has a quite big safe margin comparing to Benatar´s opinion. Benatar could be right, but in my opinion is always right, moral obligation as a matter of fact, make an abortion in first couple of months of pregnancy.
Quoting evtifron
If you are for abortion, how will you answer?
All we have to do is place the integrity of a women's body, and her control over it, above any life which happens to reside within her.
I have to respect your life until you place me in reasonable fear of imminent and serious bodily harm, in which case I can defend myself, and if you get killed in the process, tough. We could even lower that standard, if we want, to where my fear need not be reasonable, as long as I had fear. Or even less, not imminent. Or even less, not serious bodily harm, but any harm. We can round boys up and send them off to war. We can kill murders. We can do all kinds of things and still be civil, legal, logical, moral, philosophical, ethical, etc. Being "innocent" as a baby can be trumped by considerations of the woman. My house, my rules. Her body, her rules.
The only leg pro-life people have to stand on is the sanctity of human life. Which, of course, is not so sacred when it comes down to it. We take it all the time on the back end; we can take it on the front end too. So they then try to qualify it based upon innocence. But again, innocence can be trumped by concern for the control over ones own carcass. We can tell her coulda-shoulda-woulda, but it's her body and there is no compelling state interest in keeping babies alive, beyond the creation of new tax payers. And that can be addressed at the border.
The first and last statements here are incompatible. If morality exists only in human consciousness, then there are no objective moral truths; but if the value of human life is morally objective, then there ARE objective moral truths. You can't hold both positions, they are contradictory.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'moral subject'. If you mean there is no-one in a position to make a moral judgment, you're wrong, because you and I and others reading this thread are in that position. If you mean that there is no-one in my scenario who is affected by anything such that their being affected is a moral issue, then yes, that is precisely the point I was making.
Well, as I've said, I disagree. My example of the last man alive is an argument to support my position. You've given me no arguments to support yours, only assertions.
They weren't meant to be formal arguments, they are simply facts which shed some light on the reasons why people claim that human life is something special.
Do you think it is immoral to beat a dog for your own amusement? If you don't, then your view is immoral. If you do, then you hold a moral view which does not imply the value of human life.
A fetus isn´t human being at early stage of pregnancy.
You are nobody to judge who should forced to be born. Having a child is a selfish act.
The moral fact is, if you´re pregnant, is a moral obligation to terminate the pregnancy (at least in the first couple of months).
That is the responsibility of moral acts.
Study biology yourself. There is lots of suffering among of others animals in the world, in the nature and on the other hand, caused by human beings. Your way to put freshly existent fetus´s life´s value over fetuses of other animals, or even already born animals, is speciesism. And it´s just stupid.
Study also moral and origin of ethics. Maybe you learn something.
No, it does not. Integrity applies at threat of unlawful touching (assault) and unlawful touching (battery). She gets to decide whether any touching is unlawful or not. She can also revoke permission at any time. So, if conception occurs, whether she consented to it or not, she can revoke consent at any time prior to birth.
Quoting Alexandros
No, it's not. It's homicide. Homicide is not murder until we say it is.
The balance of you post has been dealt with so I'll stop dissecting it here.
That has been addressed in the argument regarding mother vs baby. The king may have an interest in future generations, but my thread of yarn was simply an effort to speculate on what that interest might be, considering the women is standing right there in front of him. Subjects, or subjects to be? That is the question. I think we answer that by saying "To be, or not to be, that is a question for the mother. The king can go F himself and see if he can make a subject on his own.
You would have been wise to read what I already said in debunking your understanding of law and biology. I stopped because the balance of your post had been previously debunked. The wise choice, would be for me to stop explaining that which has already been explained but ignored, with no new distinctions with a relevant difference. So now let me pretend to be wise.
That is not what I said. I consider human life has a great value, but I don´t regard young human fetuses as human beings.
Quoting Alexandros
All what´s in your posts are biological speciesism and statements without reasoning, there´s no logic there. And when we are discussing of giving a human rights for non-sentient fetus, speaking of also from animal rights are more than relevant. At least, already born mammals are way more sentient beings than young human fetuses.
And ability to feel emotions and to suffer is one criteria of value of life. And there´s huge difference of ability to feel pain between insects and mammals, for example. Looks like you don´t know much about biology yourself.
Quoting Alexandros
There is a contradiction with your own statement. A newborn child is not as intelligent as five year old bonobo ape. And analyzing your own logic and reasoning, I´m not sure are you either (as intelligent than five year old bonobo ape). Anyway, I give you the? value of a human being. Human value is not depending about intelligence, or lack of it.
Quoting Alexandros
I don´t think you are the person to talk to me about structures and responsibilities, or reasoning. You take some moral axioms for granted, with no reasonable argument behind. Some may say, that you should start to think with your own brains, but I see problem there; looks like you don´t have enough brains to think for. You can prove me wrong, but I seriously doubt your capability for that.
Great piece, by the way. Thank you. With suns rising and bells tolling I'm seeing Earnest H, but only by the titles to his books. I have them on me reading list, but I think Donne might be more interesting.
Then you did not read my posts in this thread, or the debunking eluded you. Here I am, being stupid again. LOL!
I still don't understand what you mean by a 'moral subject.' Please say what you mean by it. Are you using it the way it is used here: ('A moral subject is anything that can be harmed', https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/moral-agent-subject-of-moral-worth), or are using it to mean something else, and if so, what?
A human fetus could be biologically human in essence of biological definition, but it is not sentient being at the early stage of pregnancy. That is the essential point.
And about intelligence, there are people who have so permanently mentally retarded condition that they could never reach the intelligence of a five year old ape. According to your point of view of importance of intelligence for value of a human life, you cannot therefore give the value of human being for those mentally retarded persons and not give the same value for apes. According to your logic, you should give more value for life of apes than for those mentally retarded people.
Let's say that you press a magic button that creates a frozen person with no memories and no past history in a physical condition similar to that of Anna Bagenholm back when she was frozen. In such a scenario, would this frozen person actually have a right to life? Should one actually have a moral duty to save their life, or would refusing to help them be comparable to refusing to conceive someone in the first place? After all, such a frozen person, in spite of them looking like an ordinary person, never actually had sentience to begin with but could acquire sentience if they will indeed be unfrozen in time.
There is of course also the bodily autonomy argument, but that's only relevant if one grants prenatal personhood.
But of course I am highly uneasy about the future of value argument because anti-abortion people only apply it to existing organisms--not to organisms who don't actually exist yet. In other words, refusing to conceive someone and thus depriving this person of a future of value is perfectly acceptable; it's only when someone is already conceived and deprived of a future of value that they are actually being wronged. I'm not sure just how exactly one should square this circle. I mean, one could imagine there to be a case where it is wrong to refuse to conceive someone--for instance, if someone asks you to be their sperm donor, where you have ironclad legal guarantees that you will never be hunted down for child support afterwards, and where this other person says that they will never have any biological children if they can't have them with you, then I would indeed think that it would be morally wrong for you to refuse to donate your sperm to this person and thus allow them to conceive and create a new life. But this is a pretty exceptional case, IMHO.
I take it you mean some sort of essence that makes humans human. This is a myth, there is no such thing. Humans are composed of matter and energy, like other material objects, and as far as anyone has been able to discover, nothing else.
'Depriving this person' is confused. If there is never to be a conception, then there is no person to be deprived, and so to refuse to conceive a person is not wronging the never-to-be-conceived person, because 'the never-to-be-conceived person' fails to denote anything.
Yes, I agree. But I don´t think that value of the sentient life depends on intelligence.
Now I have to admit, my intellect could not follow your logic.
The essence is that "A human fetus is biologically human" (not "it could be")
lack of sentience or intelligence does not make it not-a-human being.
By biological definition yes, I agree.
Quoting SpaceDweller
The ability to sentience is essential, when we are discussing are we going to give - or give we not - human rights for some being.
I think you need to be more precise. Parturition involves several stages (https://www.healthline.com/health/parturition#stage-3). At which of the following stages do you consider that the woman no longer has the 'unfettered right'?
1. Latent phase of dilation of the cervix.
2. Active phase of dilation of the cervix.
3. Passive phase of expulsion.
4. Active phase of expulsion.
5. Delivery of the placenta.
6. Clamping of the placenta (if it occurs).
7. Cutting of the placenta.
(I've added 6 and 7 for completeness.)
Having chosen one of these, please explain why you chose that stage rather than any of the others.
Why?
Given the fact we are talking about human being then we should give it human rights regardless of it's abilities.
I mean, something either is human being (it exists and is alive) or it is not (does not exist or it is dead)
One thing is that, we can say a fetus is a human being by biological definition. I see slippery slope here and also a fallacy, which comes by natural language (when we simply use concept "human rights", like I also did).
A fetus can be human being by biological definition, but lack all the essential criterias, which are important when we evaluate a value of life of some being - is it by definition a human being or perhaps some animal.
What makes you say that?
I see your point, but current criterias are unfortunately not universally accepted.
Ending life is about human rights, so if those criterias are not governed by morality then aren't they exposed to immoral conclusions?
For example, if we exclude morality then we can also say that killing a retard person is favorable vs killing a normal one, or killing a 1 month old baby is favorable vs killing 30 years old person?
This is what most people may do if they're forced to death to choose.
Because one have to choose between 2 evils, so he chooses lesser one.
Morally they are all equal human beings regardless of their abilities, so I think the choice above should be random to be morally acceptable.
Same way if we exclude morality, and human rights don't apply to non sentient being, a fetus, then what makes this morally acceptable?
Quoting Antinatalist
I would not dare to compare human fetus to animal fetus and then draw conclusions based on perception or differences between 2 fetuses.
They are never.
Quoting SpaceDweller
I don´t think that kind of immorality follows from my opinion about right for abortion (It is indeed moral obligation at first couple of months of pregnancy, that´s my opinion and is reasoned from my antinatalistic point of view).
Quoting SpaceDweller
If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that abortion and killing already born person are morally at same level?
We have to look deeper to the concept like "the human rights". To the origin of ethics.
In moral philosophy is a concept of "a person". A person has always value, and her/his life is always valuable, at least according to most moral philosophers.
Most moral philosophers don´t define couple of months old fetus as a person. And some philosophers give the status of a person to some animals too. Of course those philosophers could be wrong, but I wrote this to clarify my point of view.
Quoting SpaceDweller
At least at early stages of pregnancy I would. What makes human fetus so special compared to animal fetus? But I was meaning human fetus and comparing its life for already born animal´s life.
Yes, I unless you don't have to choose between 2.
Because procreation (and protection of it) is natural to all known life, stopping procreation is not a natural thing, I think nowhere in the nature we can observe such behavior?
Except for us humans ofc, that would likely be very unusual or not a normal thing.
Quoting Antinatalist
Because it's natural for one kind to protect it's own kind rather than other kind.
Quoting Antinatalist
I understand, same problem as with current "criterias" that we currently have.
One may also ask. what is life and when does it begin?
Does sentience define life?
Hard statement. Are you kind of person, who attacks to the abortion clinics?
Quoting SpaceDweller
That something is natural, it doesn´t make it good. You should google David Hume and Hume´s Guillotine.
What makes human fetus so special compared to animal fetus?
But I was meaning human fetus and comparing its life for already born animal´s life.
— Antinatalist
Quoting SpaceDweller
Like I said, that something is natural doesn´t make it good. Viruses are natural too, and cancer, for example.
In moral philosophy is a concept of "a person". A person has always value, and her/his life is always valuable, at least according to most moral philosophers.
Most moral philosophers don´t define couple of months old fetus as a person.
— Antinatalist
Quoting SpaceDweller
In my opinion sentience does not define life. But I think, most valuable and meaningful life is sentient.
Life is all around. Are viruses alive?
Plants are definitely alive.
Some people (like Cleve Backster) think that even plants are sentient beings.
I don´t believe that at all, but I have read his book from seventies; and in mid-nineties I read report from his scientifical/"scientifical" experiment, which purpose was to figure out do plants feel emotions (pain, in this particular experiment). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster
Asked and answered.
But those people who do believe that a person is born at the moment of conception will then have no choice but force - if necessary - a 11 year old girl raped by her father to carry a child to full term. I mean you can't murder an innocent person whatever the context. And the greatest holocaust and sorrow in the world are the countless fertilized eggs that are self-terminated within days of the conception - a gigantic medical programme should be created to prevent this unimaginable killing field. Memorials to these billions of young persons (whether zygotes or embryos) that have died so tragically young should be scattered all over our human habitations.
The fact that if nothing is ever conceived, nothing exists which could be denoted. You can only denote something that exists, has existed, or will exist. See Russell, 'On Denoting' (https://www.uvm.edu/~lderosse/courses/lang/Russell(1905).pdf)
The life of a sentient being can have value both to that being and to other sentient beings. Thus my life has value to me, and also to my dog (because I feed him). By contrast, the life of a non-sentient being, such as a pre-sentient foetus, can only have value to other sentient beings; because it is not sentient, it can have no value to itself, which is to say, it does not matter to the pre-sentient foetus what happens to it, or whether it continues to live or not.
The value of a being's life to itself, rather than to others, is the core of morality. Without it, all we have is the value of sentient lives to others, and if that is all we take into account, it leads to many abuses of sentient beings for purposes that are against those beings' interests, e.g. killing them for food just because we like the way their flesh tastes, or depriving them of their liberty if they state publicly that they disagree with the way their country is being run.
A non-sentient being, such as a pre-sentient foetus, has never had value to itself. If it is aborted, it never WILL have value to itself. That is why it is not wrong to abort a non-sentient foetus. It is also why a non-sentient foetus should not be given human rights. We should only give human rights to human organisms whose lives have value to them, or have had value to them, or will at some future date have value to them. An aborted pre-sentient foetus falls into none of these categories. The idea of giving rights to something that is incapable of valuing anything, something to which it can't matter how you treat it, is absurd.
Does this mean we should allow the killing of sleeping people? I would say no. This is not because it offends against the moral rule-of-thumb that only beings that ARE non-sentient should be killed; it's because it offends against the moral rule-of-thumb that beings that HAVE BEEN sentient should not be killed. There are good reasons why, in most cases, we should follow these rules-of-thumb, the main one being that not following them tends to lead to cruelty against sentient beings, and this causes unhappiness, which is intrinsically evil.
— Antinatalist
Quoting Herg
I certainly agree.
Quoting Herg
I agree for this, also.
Nice to see the true spirit of Christian love is alive and well on this forum. ;)
I'd be perfectly willing to kill a pre-sentient foetus, but you don't get a lot of opportunity when you're a retired computer systems designer.
Scum of the earth..
ROFL.
That's gross. I'm not a Christian btw. Christianity is pro-abortion because God in their system can command abortion and so maybe does
I'm an atheist who believes in morality
You have no proof a fetus isn't as sentient as you
We are to treat others as we would be treated. Would you have aborted yourself?
I do, as it happens. Here it is, in two parts:
1. It is obvious that an embryo in the first few days could not possibly feel anything, since it is no more than a few living cells. So the real issue is not WHETHER a foetus becomes sentient, but WHEN it does.
2. The nervous system, which would be required for sentience, does not start to develop until the 3rd week of pregnancy:
"Following fertilisation, the nervous system begins to form in the 3rd week of development." (https://teachmeanatomy.info/the-basics/embryology/central-nervous-system/)
So a foetus cannot be 'as sentient as me' until at least the 3rd week of pregnancy. QED.
My personal view is that the ability to feel pain, rather than mere sentience, is what counts. The latest evidence is that a foetus cannot feel pain until it is at least 12 weeks old:
"Overall, the evidence, and a balanced reading of that evidence, points towards an immediate and unreflective pain experience mediated by the developing function of the nervous system from as early as 12 weeks." (https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3)
So I think I would say that it is morally okay to abort a foetus less than 12 weeks old.
Quoting Gregory
This injunction only applies if the 'others' are sentient, because if they aren't sentient, it can't matter to them how they are treated, so it shouldn't matter to us.
Your question contains an error. If I had aborted the pre-sentient foetus that later became me, it would not have developed into me, so it would not be myself that I was aborting. You should have said, 'Would you have aborted the pre-sentient foetus that later developed into you?' And the answer is 'no', because both my parents were healthy and able to look after me without harm to themselves, they both wanted me to be born, and who am I to stop them having a child if they wanted one?
I'm not going to argue philosophy with a doodoo elderly Nazi
If you want us to respect all human life then you need to be specific. When does human life begin? Is a zygote a person? A blastocyst? An embryo?
It's pretty obvious what human life is unless you are trying to justify abortion
If it was obvious we would not be having this discussion.
Are you OK with a woman taking a "morning after" pill to prevent the blastocyst from implanting in her womb?
Morning after pill is obviously abortion. People have reasons for defending abortion and these reasons blur their reasoning. Just as people justified enslaving Native Americans, people do worse than enslave the unborn. A woman has the duty and right to be a mother once pregnant and can't say she can kill her child because it infringes on her freedom. Are we to say a pregnant women is biologically different and so she has no right to life?
Pro-choice people shut down their conscience and think of the issue with reason disconnected to conscience. What right have they to arbitrarily say where life begins?
The obvious answer is you respect it all
OK - I just wanted to be clear. You believe in zygote personhood (i.e., the zygote is a legally a person and any attempts to prevent the zygote from being implanted in the woman's womb is murder.).
So now I'm curious - what is your position regarding in vitro fertilization (IVF)? More specifically, what should be done with the left over human beings who are sitting around cryogenically frozen? Exact numbers are difficult to come by, but by at least one estimate there are 1.4 million in the US alone.
Is it murder to destroy a cryogenically frozen embryo? If yes, then what should be done with them?
If they are not already dead then duh you don't kill them. Science is not blurry when life is, both at the beginning and end. It's people who say "not enough life there for me to respect" when they obviously don't have the right to say that. They have the civil right to express their opinions but they have the need to feel their souls on this issue. They make the matter fuzzy when its really clear. Watch pro-choice peoples' *faces* when they discuss the issue. Guilt micro and macro expressions all over the place. Being pro-choice is not going to make your life better. It hinders understanding of your own soul
But those people who do believe that a person is born at the moment of conception will then have no choice but force - if necessary - a 11 year old girl raped by her father to carry a child to full term. I mean you can't murder an innocent person whatever the context.
In fact any raped woman would be forced to carry the child to conception. Your family could be killed in a house invasion and you could be raped pregnant and you would have to carry the child for 9 months to conception.
Yes, extreme and unpleasant examples but sometimes ethical views can have extreme and unpleasant concequences. And, sadly, when it comes to rape (and even incest) we are not talking about a hugely rare thing. Quite a fanatical thing to believe that a raped woman or barely adolescent girl should be forced to give birth.
Teenagers should learn morals instead of being taught its OK to kill their offspring. An abortion would ruin her life more
1) low IQ arguments, as "pro-choice" indicates
2) an appeal to emotion, as the title "pro-choice", again, indicates
3) a pride filled attempt to make an arbitrary limit on who should lived based on a desire for maximal liberty to do what "I me mine wants!!"
Imagine you watched a nature show where a female bear violently hits her side against a tree to kill her cub inside her. You would feel your soul (you could feel that anywhere in the body I suppose) recoil in shock from it. Yet it's ok for humans to do it?
I don't think women are really pro-choice. A man can make up his mind about that anytime in his life but a woman really becomes pro-choice in her pregnancies (or pro-family). She does so by regarding the fetus as an extension of her sexual organs which is why they say "my body my right" even though it's not her body but her offspring that's at issue. She say's "my freedom for my sexual/reproductive liberation" without regard for whether her offspring may have that right too in seed form
Counter: I enjoy swimming. Sometimes I swim in non-sterile environments (lakes, rivers, ponds, the ocean. etc.) Prior to swimming in these environments I am aware that I could potentially end up with some sort of unwanted result: swimmer's ear, a leech or two, etc. I swim anyway, knowing the possible result. Should any of these unwanted results occur I take the appropriate steps to resolve the problem. More applicable to the abortion comparison: If after a pond swim I should happen to find a leech or two on me I do not consider it my moral duty to allow it to continue to drink my blood, despite my knowing that I could end up with a leech on me. I remove it with a knife. I do not, generally, kill it; there is no need. An unwanted life form living off of another is called a parasite. I do not advocate for the continued existence of a parasite on moral grounds, regardless of the parasite.
Well, you don't really argue philosophy at all, do you? You've just come on this forum to preach at us and hurl insults. And now you've added ageism to your other delightful qualities. BTW, I'm not a Nazi, politically I'm pretty much middle of the road.
Nevertheless, I'm here whenever you wish to engage with MY arguments and give reasoned replies, instead of insults.
Have a nice day.
Why are you here at all if you hate philosophy so much?
I am not criticizing your stance. I am simply attempting to follow through on the implications of your position.
Are you opposed to in vitro fertilization (that would be a legitimat6e position to take)? If not, then are you OK with millions of partially developed human beings existing in a sort of unconscious limbo for all eternity? If not, what should happen?
I am not saying that. I am talking about sentience, not life, and you have not had the guts to face up to my arguments. I am not denying that a pre-sentient foetus is alive. I am not denying that aborting a pre-sentient foetus is taking a human life. I am claiming that a human life can have no value to itself if it has never been sentient, so taking that life is not taking something of value. Could you value something if you could not think and feel? Of course you couldn't. Face up to this argument like a decent human being, stop evading the real issue, stop hiding behind youir supposed 'common sense', which is really just cowardice and prejudice, and answer my arguments, if you can. And if you can't, step up and be a decent human being and admit that you can't. If you don't do this, you have no right to be here on this forum.
If the bear knows she has a cub, then presumably the cub must be pretty well developed, so when you say 'yet it's ok for humans to do it', what you mean is that it's ok for humans to kill a well developed foetus. No, it isn't ok, because by that time, the foetus is a sentient being, and therefore has interests of its own which deserve to be considered.
If you are going to come on here and argue against pro-choice people, you should at least be able to distinguish between people who think abortion is ok at any stage, like James Riley, and people who don't, like me and Antinatalist.
I think your interpretation of my assessment is accurate enough for your purposes here, in responding to Gregory. If we were to dive deeper, I might discuss your use of the word "ok". I think it should be legal, I think it is moral, and ethical, and to that extent, yeah, I think it is "ok." But I think it might be more accurate to say that I think it is none of the state's business, my business or the the business of anyone the women does not want to involve in the consideration of it. That passes no judgement on the issue of "ok." I feel likewise about other activities one might engage in. Whether or not I think they are "ok" is subordinated to the personal decision making process of another.
In my world, the state will not be allowed in a room where a woman is fixing to drop, unless a warrant has been issued on substantial credible evidence providing the state with probable cause to believe that the women or her doctor or someone else is intending to murder the baby after it leaves the vagina. So, the state will never know what happens in the privacy of her birthing environment, and the hair need not be parsed, regardless of some one’s impressive obstetrical knowledge about the different stages of parturition. In other words, there are some private things that no one, anywhere, ever, has a right to know. When I was growing up, we used to say “None of your business.”
P.S. Digression: If I saw a sow banging herself against a tree to abort, I wouldn't know what she was doing because I've never seen it, or even heard of it. But how I'd feel is irrelevant to the fact that I would not interfere. It's none of my business. I have, however, seen a boar kill cubs, and fight with a sow to kill the cubs, presumably because they were sired by another boar. I would not interfere with that process either, whereas I would interfere if I saw a human killing kids on the playground. But I would try not to judge. Whenever I hear people sympathizing with a prey animal under attack, I try my best to sympathize with the predator trying to put food on the table (and feed his/her own kids) while some dickhead human comes to the rescue of the "innocent" little prey animal.
Finally, and I assume this point has already been made, buried in this thread somewhere, I find it very hard to listen to pro-life people champion the cause of the unborn when so often their treatment of the born is so full of judgement and mistreatment, so not pro-life in it's essence. They lack credibility in my eyes, so I don't waste a lot of time listening to them or arguing with them. If they are pro-life, let them prove it, first, in how they treat their fellow creatures, including humans.
"Brother, we have been told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors: We are acquainted with them. We will wait a little while and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will consider again of what you have said." Sa-go-ye-wat-ha to a missionary in 1805.
I'm not going to respond to you on this because there were other ways to respond to what I initially said instead of saying you'd be happy to perform an abortion. Since you're a Nazi I'm not going to reason with you because it's my reason connected with ethical sense vs your reason connected to evil. There no real way to have a discussion with you even though your arguments are the same as others. It's just about the best way to deal with you
There a difference between keeping someone alive and killing them, just as there is a difference between murdering someone and killing someone who is attacking on high on acid
As a sign of respect to your humanity, I'll tell you that you don't have any unique arguments for abortion anyway. It's the same private opinions on when life begins. It doesn't respect pregnancy but you can't see that because you want to be an abortion doctor. An abortion doctor gives up his right to life when he takes life, just like anyone else who takes like. That natural law. That's why we have the death penalty
Quoting Gregory
Quoting Gregory
I know you won't talk to me Gregory. That's cool. But that almost sounds like a threat. Would you kill an abortion doctor? Do you aspire to the acts of Robert Lewis Dear Jr.? Asking for myself.
You didn't say you wanted to be an abortion doctor. Anyway, the death penalty is applied by the state as we all know. It won't happen for abortion because of the after the law was legal thing. But it could stop illegal ones if the Supreme Court made abortion illegal
Okay, I guess I was reading too much into your posts.
I'm glad you asked for clarification. Read my last post above
Your response was not clear so just confirming. If I'm following you, you think we should keep millions of embryos frozen for all eternity. Am I understanding you correctly?
It's like someone on life support who is brain dead. Putting a bullet through their head is different from taking away life support. Not noticing these distinctions brings about issues such as abortion where people spin arguments and don't think about the issue with moral conscience
In Catholic teaching, an omission is a failure to do something one can and ought to do. If an omission happens deliberately and freely, it is considered a sin. I'm no Catholic, but they do make a good case. If you pull the plug on someone, I don't see a difference between that and running a bullet through their brain pan. Letting "nature take it's course" after affirmatively removing life support is like the Governor saying he didn't throw the switch on Old Sparky.
A) Yes - we must keep millions of embryos frozen for all eternity - and laws must be passed to insure this.
B) No - It may be necessary at some point to unfreeze them and thus (using your terminology) murder them. E.g., the clinic goes bankrupt and no one is willing to pay to keep them frozen. Note that I'm not implying that this a good outcome.
Actually, there is a third option - namely (a la the Catholic Church) that in vitro fertilization should be illegal - but since you have had ample opportunity to state that and have not, I assume you are OK with IVF.
Again, I am not criticizing your position. But there are far reaching policy decisions to be made if a country is to incorporate zygote personhood into its' legal system. This has to be thought though..
I did answer your question. There a difference between allowing to die and killing. The doctors can work out how they want to do this in a human way very easily
For those faced with those decisions there is a very real difference between stopping machines you set up and shooting the person in the head. This is not an "on paper" issue. It's life and blood reality
That's precisely why I disagree with you: there is no "very real difference." It's exactly the same thing for those faced with those decisions.
There could be a situation where you can kill a non-criminal if they are facing great pain and it's like the situation of a horse with broken legs. That is one of those gray areas but abortion is not that unless the child is in great pain. Abortion is about the mother choosing her freedom over the child's right to life. To perform an abortion is THE most immoral thing a person can do. You can't asses these issues without a respect for life
Snip irrelevant post.
You said: "Putting a bullet through their head is different from taking away life support. Not noticing these distinctions . . ."
There is no distinction. That's precisely why I disagree with you: there is no "very real difference." It's exactly the same thing for those faced with those decisions.
Your life started in pregnancy but you're pro-choice and don't have respect for pregnancy. So you can't see necessary distinction in these questions
I have great respect for pregnancy, I just have more respect for the pregnant. But again, that is irrelevant to the question, which has nothing to do with pregnancy or abortion. You said: "Putting a bullet through their head is different from taking away life support. Not noticing these distinctions . . ."
There is no distinction. That's precisely why I disagree with you: there is no "very real difference." It's exactly the same thing for those faced with those decisions. It might help if you could articulate a distinction with a relevant difference.
You can't see the difference and won't. Nature takes its course but shooting is not nature. You can't see that an embryo is a baby. These are all obvious things I've written about but go ahead and have the last word.
So, putting a body on life support is, or is not, nature taking it's course? And then taking if off life support is, or is not, nature taking it's course? In other words, what is the difference between pulling the plug and pulling the trigger?
Life support is not nature
It's like if I say "giving him poison was to kill the pain and the death is a side effect". That's what your logic is like
Some might consider it human nature.
No, because it's not my logic. Remember, you are the one who made an assertion regarding a distinction between pulling plugs and pulling triggers. I'm just trying to get you to explain yourself. But, apparently, you can't.
This is not about abstract logic. Your soul isn't involved in this discussion so you're not seeing what I've already explained. It doesn't matter what "some might" consider. Its about truth. You draw a distinction between the mother and child, pitting the one against the other, demonstrating you are a very confused person. Taking away support we set up is different from intentional killing them
This isn't about abstract logic, Gregory. As I've tried to teach you, it's very, very real to those involved. What is the difference between pulling the plug and pulling the trigger?
It is when you make it one. You said life support is not nature. Neither is pulling the plug on life support, or pulling the trigger on a gun. Since you have entirely failed to draw a distinction with a relevant difference, I tried to throw you a life line with the human nature option, but you left yourself adrift, floundering with your lack of reason.
I won't repeat myself dude. I thought you could put the pieces together from all the pieces I GAVE YOU but you can't. I'm not going to spend all day talking to you about existential realities
Thank God! Now, try to answer the question: what is the difference between pulling the plug and pulling the trigger?
It's not about logic
Great. I find a flaw in the foundation of logic, so I'm good with an illogical distinction. I just beg you, please make it. What is the relevant difference between triggers and plugs? If you were to just admit you find sanctity of life preeminent in the case of pre-born babies or whatever, I never would have jumped in. That's your bag and I'm not engaging on that. I'm just curious how you see a relevant difference between plugs and triggers.
It's not about logic
I've also said they could in a situation pull the plug, so to speak, on a frozen embryo. But you still posted that I put their life in preference. Hmm
True. You could lead with that. :up:
Have a nice day
Is thawing out embryos allowing them to die or is it killing?
*We are never forced to do an evil* so it all depends of how it's done
Respectfully putting them somewhere to die is not the same as stepping on them
So is thawing out the embryos (and doing nothing else) equivalent to
A) Respectfully putting them somewhere to die , OR
B) Stepping on them
A
Abortion is self-defense? No. Do you want homework on this?
As in "her child"
I read Roe vs Wade awhile ago. Everyone educated in the subject knows it's arguments, none of which are strong. If there is something specific in it you want me to recall then type out a brief paragraph on it
They are obsessed with her life.
Pregnant mothers intuitively feel their child as their own offspring while pregnant. There is also such a thing as "fetal-maternal microchimerism" where mothers don't only affect the child growth but the fetus keeps the mother healthier throughout the pregnancy. Pro-choicer Tim Wood above says that abortion is self defense, as if the child is invading the mother. This is a corrupt way of looking at it
or her body
That sounds like someone who's obsessed with sex. Pro-abortion folks just understand the difference between life and quality of life. And many (including men) are offended by the notion of pro-life people concerning themselves with what goes on inside the body. And they really get offended when the pro-life people turn to the state to stick it's nose in where it has no interest except the votes of pro-life people.
I can stipulate to that being true in some cases. Where it is true, that just goes to prove that the decision to kill does not come lightly, on some flip version of abortion as birth control. Pro-lifers can't have it both ways.
Where it is not true, the woman doesn't feel that way, obviously, or she wouldn't be killing the baby.
Regardless, it's not for you, or the state, to make that call for them.
So is thawing out the embryos (and doing nothing else) equivalent to respectfully putting it somewhere to die. OK, an answer.
Next question, what is the moral difference between taking a medication that prevents a blastocyst from embedding in a woman's uterus and thawing out a frozen embryo and letting it die?
In the former, the woman is simply putting the blastocyst somewhere to die.
Why is the second scenario morally acceptable, but the first is murder?
Actually it is up to men to control woman in some ways because women can't be happy unless they are controlled by men in some way
Youre making pregnancy into a cyst situation which is retarded, stupid, divorced from reality, creepy, and many other predications
Oaky-dokey. As the kids would say "Peace, out, Bro. LOL!
Well if you like miserable women and them to stay that way, how can you say you are pro-women
I do. Let the woman decide.
Quoting Gregory
Yep. Let the woman decide.
The morning after pills - which you have stated are equivalent to murder - prevent the blastocyst from embedding in a woman's uterine wall - and thus prevents pregnancy.
Why is preventing the blastocyst from implanting in a woman's uterus murder, but thawing out an embryo and letting the life slowly (or quickly) seep out of it acceptable. What is the difference?
Once a zygote is formed human DNA is activated as a human being. Morning after pills have been explained to me as killing the being once it's DNA is activated and so is truly a zygote. There really wouldn't be confusion on this issues if biologists all desired to understand when DNA is activated. But the abortion people try to misword things in order to cause confusion and more abortions. There will be debate about the details as long as people don't want to see the issue with clear conscience
Actually, it is. In fact, it is you that seems to be considering biology in relation to morality.
You had an example that has no bearing on abortion, fool. It's like your saying you'd kill a child if he invaded your house
We can understand biology's relation to ethics through reason, but not pro-choice sterile reason
Self defense is not like abortion and even is Jesus used it as an example it's wrong. A person’s value is not defined by her abilities, by what she can or can’t do. The age of the being does not define whether they have the right to life. Everyone has different capabilities. A 3 year old is still developing but it has the right to life. An unborn entity always has active DNA, and it has a heart beat at 5-6 weeks, and brain waves brain waves at 5-6 weeks? You are being selective as to who is human
It's not about logic on paper but real life reality (existential reality). Hitler said Jews weren't people. The president of Poland said gays aren't people. Pro choicers are doing the same thing with a group of individuals because the littler persons are invisible to the eye without ultrasounds, etc. Everyone is a person and deserves their human rights, including life. DNA is how life is encoded. Your opinions are dangerous not just for babies's rights but for everyone's
It's there for everyone to understand. DNA is the activity of life. If you are disconnected to this, there is nowhere practical events won't lead you in taking away others' rights. Would you, I ask, if you had the proper know-how, perform a regular everyday abortion if you were asked?
Sure we can. I have done just that.
Pro choice people debate when before birth a child can be aborted. All their reasonings on this are arbitrary though. No safer place should there be than in the womb, but pro-abortion folk don't even have the presence of mind to say "maybe it is a person so I won't support this". This issue can cause you to lose in life in general
No they are not arbitrary. It can be killed so long as it is inside the mother. Not after. That's not arbitrary. It's based on a morality that places the mother's decision making over and above the life of the baby. Two competing values: Life vs Choice. I place choice over life. You place life over choice. One is not more arbitrary than the other.
Quoting Gregory
I say it is a person, and yet I support it anyway. The mother too is a person, and she's carrying the baby. Her house, her rules.
Quoting Gregory
Or win.
The mother has the right and duty to be a mother and her offspring is her child not her enemy. Your reasoning is bizarre, but I can't work this out for you because people can always find ways to avoid what is for them a hard truth
One need not be an enemy to rate killing. My reasoning is sound. The hard truth is killing.
Maybe you're trying your best but I feel like the discussion has continued long enough. I don't quite understand how you can hold your position or if you can without seeing its flaw eventually, but thanks for your friendly contribution
You have been misinformed. Morning after pills to not destroy the blastocyte. They either prevent fertilization - OR - they prevent the blastocyte from impanting in the woman's uterus. In the former case, there is no zygote, so in your world - AFAICT - that's OK. In the later case the blastocyte gets flushed out of the woman's body by normal body processes. The woman is respectfully putting the blastocyte somewhere to die It is in this second situation that I'm trying to understand your position.
You don't have to take my word for it. Here is an explanation by the anti-abortion American Life League
So once again - you say you are OK with thawing out frozen embryos (which typically have several hundred cells and are more developed than the blastocyte) and letting them die. So then you should be OK with preventing the blastocyte from implanting in a woman's womb. As you put it
Or maybe not. Perhaps you feel that the little frozen embryos are not truly human beings since they have been artificially created, and thus it's OK to destroy them? Or perhaps you feel that the little embryos are not really alive unless they are inside a woman's body, and thus again it's OK to destroy them?
Stopping a normal process while killing the live creature is abortion. If it's outside the mother the natural process has already stopped. You're trying to force something in your reasoning and your argument is stretched out nonsense
You're trying to dissect pregnancy with a Nazi-like mind. It's not about logic but reality. You don't understand what pregnancy even is in its essence
You have been misinformed. Morning after pills do not destroy the blastocyst. They either prevent fertilization - OR - they prevent the blastocyst from implanting in the woman's uterus. In the former case, there is no zygote, so in your world - AFAICT - that's OK. In the later case the blastocyst gets flushed out of the woman's body by normal body processes. It is in this second situation that I'm trying to understand your position.
You don't have to take my word for it. Here is an explanation by the anti-abortion American Life League
So once again - you say you are OK with thawing out frozen embryos (which typically have several hundred cells and are more developed than the blastocyst) and letting them die. So then you should be OK with preventing the blastocyst from implanting in a woman's womb. From the perspective of the blastocyst/embryo it's the same thing.
Or maybe not. There are alternate explanations. Perhaps you feel that the little frozen embryos are not truly human beings since they have been artificially created, and thus it's OK to destroy them? Or perhaps you feel that the little IVF embryos are not really alive unless they are inside a woman's body, and thus again it's OK to destroy them?
It is not the same thing, as I've explained.
BS. Natural Law has a huge element of "mind your own f'ing business". Pro-choice people have tons of that.
Quoting Gregory
What you did is to avoid any explanation. Per your definition, the millions of frozen embryos are human beings - yet you have no problem with killing them. Yet preventing a blastocyst from implanting in a woman's uterus is murder.
Letting fertilized eggs die outside the womb is not killing them. Preventing a fertilized egg from going onto the wall of the uterus is different. I can't force you to see my the difference and I wouldn't want to force my belief on you. But I've given you some ideas and you can read more in many places if you want to understand pro-life philosophy better
You think fetuses are people yet we should let people kill them. So you got a big problem there bud.
If there is some way to save the embryos we must do it instead of taking away what we give to it for it to live
No, it's you who has the problem. Abortion is legal and we kill people all the time.
I sympathise with both prey and predator, but generally more so with the predator, because a quick death by having the neck severed is preferable to a slow death by starvation. I have occasionally rescued prey animals from domestic pets, but that's because they can be assumed to be well fed without needing to catch and eat prey on their own initiative. (I imagine you're not too keen on the idea of pets at all - would I be right?) I live in the suburbs, and we quite often get foxes wandering around in the daytime looking for food, looking very thin and, to my inexpert eye, mangy. They are a by-product of human society, which fucks up the natural order and doesn't care what misery it causes to other species.
Ridiculous. What is wrong with someone who supports abortion of pre-sentient foetuses saying they would be willing to perform the abortion themselves? It merely shows that I am honest and consistent. I can't help it if you are too squeamish to accept the fact that I would practise what I preach.
BTW, stop calling me a Nazi. It's factually incorrect, it's libellous, and it demonstrates for all to see that you are so incompetent at philosophy that you have to substitute insults for argument.
You are right, but I'm a hypocrite. I have a dog and three cats. I love the dog and one of the cats. Two kill mice and gophers, and I'm good with that, but I hate when they kill birds. We keep them inside 90% of the time because we have eagles, bears, mountain lion, coyote, fox, etc. We don't have any wolves, but they are in the hopper so we can hope. I've had horses and other critters.
But I've often wondered if domestication of species was original sin. You take something and deprive it of it's essence. That can be utilitarian but I don't think it's good.
We're in the same boat. We currently have one dog, and in the past we've had three other dogs, 16 cats, and 24 guinea pigs. We feed our dogs and cats on tinned food which no doubt comes from intensive farming of cows, sheep and pigs, which I disapprove of on moral grounds. so I am also a hypocrite, but I don't have time and energy to give them meat from kinder sources, and besides, we're vegetarian, so we don't have meat in the house. It's an ethical quagmire.
Well, I wouldn't talk of essences, not believing in them, but yes, I think it's bad. But we're all in it up to our necks. Slavery of humans was largely abolished in the 19th century, but we still enslave animals. If there's a God, he's not going to be happy with us when we finally meet him.
*sigh* No I don't. It sounds like a rather messy and unpleasant job, and there's a high risk of being assaulted by deluded pro-life extremists like you.
'Respect pregnancy'? Why should I? Pregnancy is not a person. I respect sentient beings. In this universe, as I keep pointing out (and you have no answer to this), sentience is the only thing that matters to itself, and hence the only thing that matters morally.
You know, if you would stop caricaturing me and actually consider what I'm saying, maybe even your scrambled brain would begin to understand the point I'm making. But you'll never get there while you persist in thinking of me as some cartoon figure in a bloodstained white coat. Your prejudices are stopping you thinking clearly.
And YOU have the nerve to call ME a Nazi?!!?
Where is Margaret Atwood when we need her?
Quoting Gregory
False analogy. Jews and gays are sentient, pre-sentient foetuses are not. When are you going to face up to this?
Hey, EricH, now you and I are BOTH Nazis! If you're not too busy tomorrow, shall we invade Poland?
D'you think maybe Gregory is trolling us all? I really hope so.
I was hinting at that with the "know better" argument but I wasn't as brave as you. However, since the idea's been broached, I believe that if we are still around in 100 year or so, humans will be looking back and wondering WTF we were thinking. Some of them will say "Oh, well, it was a different time, and they didn't know any better." BS. We knew. And I hope someone then corrects the record, saying "They knew."
But I'm a hunter and I've go no truck with killing and I respect predators. I think we are omnivores and I love meat. I just try (and fail) to live in grace with what I eat. I only hunt what I consider to be prey species and none that mate for life. I did try being a vegetarian for two years, but fell off the wagon and never went back.
I used to represent one of the largest ag companies in the world, and as part of discovery in USDC, we toured the slaughter house under an alleged CWA violation. I won't tell you about the fetus dance in the basement, but I will share a poem I wrote back around that time:
Next!
No longer wild, no longer free
Domestic, you belong to me
But the sparkle in your eye
Makes my ownership a lie
No matter what that we have done
You are still another one
I know this now in empathy
As I watch your tragedy
Up the ally on your way
To where you’re going to die today
The smell of death and anxious fear
Now you fathom what is near
The bellows of the ones before
Who’ve passed beyond the cold steel door
Still not sure, you stay in line
Past the gates the false lights shine
If it is the worst to be
Time permits you fight or flee
But now the noise and sight to greet
A head-knocked friend slides at your feet
Any chance that it won’t be?
Look around most desperately
Your Sacred Hoop spilt on the floor
Down the drain to ever more
You're more optimistic than I am. Nice poem, BTW. As we're sharing, I'll post one of mine.
The Vivisector
Observe this man. His searching eyes
stare at you with a cold surmise.
He would strip naked, if he could,
your circuitry of nerves and blood,
probing the mysteries within
the smooth frustration of your skin.
You're safe. Enlightened laws decree
that rat and cat and chimpanzee
must lie beneath his knife instead.
The soft-boiled egg of each new head
he slices open, and extracts
its yolk of appetising facts.
What, though, if in that brain of brains
a spark of pity yet remains?
Does he not fear to one day stand,
the scalpel shaking in his hand,
struck by one paralysing thought -
the weltering horrors he has wrought?
The risk is slight. This man is wise,
and knows, behind his scalpel eyes,
a truth no saint or sage has taught -
truth none the less, and dearly bought:
strokes that tear others' lives apart
cauterise the human heart.
This man is pure in his ideals.
The more he learns, the less he feels.
Down corridors of pain, he sends
his fellow creatures to their ends,
and some god in a hell of ice
is well pleased with the sacrifice.
:100: :heart:
It's not about insults. Your abortion stance is contrary to what your soul tells you.
I completely agree: huge difference between a head shot and turning off the machines. The headshot is relatively instant and as such, much more humane. Turning off the machines means the body lingers, gasps if it can, and if there is brain function remaining, is acutely aware of the impending death, which, depending on the resilience and strength of the organism, can take quite awhile. Gasping, struggling, choking, and slowly fading away.
Personally I will take the bullet option, ideally while I am sleeping.
Go turn off a machine and start counting...it lasts much longer than a gunshot.
Abortion isn't mercy killing firstly. Also, are you for suicide?
So, yes, to answer your question directly, I am supporter of the individual's choice. If Bob wants to live, great. Let's see if we can help him live well. If he wants to die, let's help him do that well also. If Mary wants to bear her child, or not, same thing. I am not interested in checking with anyone except the primary individual involved.
Respect all life equally; not just the human.
What about the autonomy of the baby?
The baby is not autonomous.
Sure it is
That's a very wicked way to define autonomy. And you say suicide doesn't destroy the soul? Well there are messed up people poising as philosophers everywhere I know. You're on the road to a naraka you won't have the strength to get out of. I'm too bored with this conversation,
and good luck but I wouldn't help you
All pro-lifers can do is indicate the way. Try debating an Islamic terrorist and you'll see how that is
Ha! That got a laugh out of me. But no - I don't get the impression he's a troll - I think he sincerely believes what he says. I get the appeal of zygote personhood - it's simple to understand plus you get to be self righteous and lecture people on how bad they are.
That's like a burglar telling me it's not about theft.
An atheist who believes there are such things as souls is a new one on me.
There are no such things as souls. If you think there are, provide evidence.
While I'm thinking about this, tell me: on what grounds do you, as an atheist, draw an absolute moral line between humans and other animals? I can see why a theist might do it, because theists, or at least Christians, believe that only humans are made in the image of God; but on what grounds do you do it?
Your first statement does not provide any grounds for accepting your second statement. Was it supposed to? If not, what is the first statement doing there? Do you understand how to construct a logical argument?
Brains are not necessary for sentience. Like I have said many times on this forum, dividing the line between Christian philosophy and common materialism is false. You have to have proper philosophy and an understanding of your own soul and that things contain flux but also essence in them. There is no Prime Mover. Most people don't really understand anything about philosophy, apparently you included (after all, you asked for "proof" for the soul lol, gee)
Babies have brain waves and heart beats by ten weeks, so that establishes (one would assume) that you can't kill them at that point. Knowing that the essence was there from conception takes knowing your own soul and how to do philosophy. Philosophy is a very dangerous practice if you have no idea how to do it right. Obviously you don't know how to even read my posts
Find me a scientist who agrees with this statement.
Quoting Gregory
No, you're right I don't understand anything about philosophy, I only have an honours degree in it from one of the world's best universities.
Go and enrol on a proper philosophy course at a decent educational establishment, and come back to this forum when you've completed it. At the moment you're just talking utter nonsense.
Gibberish. Where do you get your ideas from? Who have you been reading?
If you can't feel your soul you can't know philosophy. I read Kant to Hegel, who were obviously atheists who COULD feel their souls and knew morality well. Most philosophy students are pretentious and don't know anything really. Asking where souls come from is like asking where matter comes from. Those are prerequisites for understanding and don't have a source. The ten weeks of substantial essence (soul) is what produces the brain and heart in ten week old child of the womb
If someone spends years studying philosophy without knowing they have a soul then they've dug themselves into a deep hole. Philosophy can be very dangerous. You're not an authority on anything. As for flux and substance, there is Heidegger, Sartre, Hegel, and most phenomenology
I genuinely don't hate you but I don't know what you want from this conversation. I'm not sure I'm willing to discuss philosophy for hours on end in how it relates to soul. If you don't believe in the soul you can believe anything. I post rather sporadically on this forum because I don't like it to take up much of my time. I've taken a couple years of philosophy at the college level but I learn far more on my own. Again, I don't like this forum to take up much of my time because I read philosophy mostly for myself and spend much of my time doing that
I'm afraid that if you post an opinion in any philosophy forum, particularly if it's as contentious as some of your opinions, people are not going to just let you have the last word and go away. They will argue with you, and it will take up your time. That's how it works. If you don't like it, don't post here.
Quoting Gregory
Quoting Gregory
Except for Kant, these authors are not central to current Western philosophy. You need to read more in the English and American tradition. I suggest you dip into the online Stanford Encyclopedia (https://plato.stanford.edu/), which is free and contains excellent articles summarising the status of current debates on a huge variety of philosophical subjects. Just search using a keyword and find what interests you.
Peace out.
The only people I called Nazis was, firstly, you because you did not hesitate to say "I'd be perfectly willing to kill a pre-sentient foetus". That's very cold blooded and the type of of philosophy your into makes the situation worse. And the other fella said fetuses are people but their mothers can kill them anyway, which shows where bad philosophy leads
I'm not cold-blooded. Since in my view a pre-sentient foetus is no more deserving of consideration than a pot plant, it is no more cold-blooded for me to say I'd be willing to kill a foetus than for me to say I'd be willing to kill a pot plant.
I think it is YOUR philosophy that makes things worse, by denying a woman the right to abort a pre-sentient foetus if having a baby is not in her best interests.
This kind of discussion could go on for ever, and it never gets anywhere because your basic assumptions and mine are incompatible.
I know how this forum works. I have 3000 posts and 100 threads. Studying philosophy is a big part of my life and I have a unique approach it seems in comparison to others in that I read some of Hegel everyday (I'm reading phenomenology of spirit for the 4th time now, or as I like to call it "appearance of Brahmin").
I will just add that you could have disagreed with James above when he said fetuses are persons we're allowed to kill, but you didn't object to it. We dont get to decide on our own how we are to view pre-born life. But anyways thanks for the conversation
Quoting Gregory
If you were to leave a newborn infant unattended, it will die a painful death in a few days. If you leave an embryo unattended it will perish shortly.
For the moment let's forget about the millions of frozen embryos. There is nothing anyone can do about it, they will never be implanted and while you can postpone it , they will eventually all be killed.
So let's ask a different question. How can this holocaust be prevented moving forward?
I am not an expert in IVF, but from what I have read, under the current technology there is no way to prevent at least some of the embryos from being killed. It is in the nature of the procedure; multiple embryos must be created because not all of them turn out to be suitable for implantation - and the unsuitable embryos are killed.
So I put it to you, the only way to prevent this mass murder is to outlaw IVF. Now you might say that if IVF procedures could be improved to the point where all embryos are implanted, you could pass such a law - "All embryos must be implanted". But to get to this point you would have to do further research - and there is no way you could do such research without doing extensive testing - and such testing would inevitably involve killing embryos.
So, I put it to you that if you truly want to embed zygote personhood into a country's legal system - then IVF must be outlawed.
- - - - - - - -
But all of that aside, IVF is really a minor side issue. Here's my next question:
Quoting Gregory
This is selective punishment. Any punishment for the abortionist must apply equally to the woman. Take this example: you and I agree to murder someone. I grab the person from behind and seize their hands so they cannot defend themselves - and then you stick the knife into their heart. Even tho I did not perform the final act of killing, I am equally responsible for the murder.
A woman goes voluntarily into an abortion clinic, holds down here helpless child, and lets the abortionist rip her child out of her uterus and kill it. The woman and abortionist are equally responsible for this murder and must be punished equally.
But it goes beyond that. If a murder is committed in the course of a bank robbery, the driver of the getaway car is equally responsible for that murder (at least that's my understanding of US law). So if you knowingly and voluntarily assist in any way this murder - if you drive the woman to the abortionist, if you give the woman money to have the abortion, if you work in the clinic (receptionist, assistant, etc) - you are committing 1st degree murder and must be punished accordingly.
- - - -- - - - - -
As an aside, I generally try to avoid getting personal in these discussions and just deal with the issues, but it is revealing that you used the masculine pronoun for the doctor. There are female doctors.
Whether the abortion doctor is female or not does not matter. I don't know if we can judge pregnant women in their abortion decisions but we can judge the doctors (they aren't real doctors of course). As for frozen embryos, you just don't make ones you plan to kill and if you have too many you let some die. This is not the same as stopping the fertilized egg from getting to the uterus wall. To me the answer to these questions are very easy, you even said they were simple. Pro-abortion people are stuck with the mind numbing problem on when to kill the young offspring and I imagine this issue has caused for more pain for people then relief from sufferings
So under some situations it's OK to kill your children by "letting some die" (which is simply a euphemism for murder). Got it. And there is no punishment for a woman who murders her child via abortion. Got it.
How is a frozen embryo a child, let alone a person (philosophically)? If it isn't a person it isn't murder, it is just killing. Furthermore, if you believe that an embryo is a potentially valuable being then you must also believe that the pre-inseminated ovum and semen constitute a person, if the ovum is going to be inseminated. That is patently absurd, and yields the conclusion that contraception, or a failure to inseminate the ovum, is murder. Even further, if you believe that the embryo has value because it can develop into a sentient, conscious, etc. being and therefore should be carried to term, then you must maintain that we should bring into existence as many of these valuable beings as we can. So do you believe that we should just breed tons of happy cows? Or all have scads of children, despite the fact that they might live in sub-par conditions due to a lack of resources? Should we raid the freezers and inseminate all of those ova? You might say no, but to not do so is tantamount to murder according to you.
It never hurts a conversation to cell your interlocutor a nazi :up: .
I don't see many people complaining when a guy uses porn for release. That's genocide...
:shade:
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with this kind of stuff. And I don't know why this thread just got popular, it's like a year old.
Haha.
Philosophy.
It never ends.
I don't have a uterus, and, so, even I am of the opinion that I don't really have a say in this debate, but it'd seem to me to be the case that Feminists would be better off not trying to refute Christians with science, occasionally backpedaling oddly nebulous philosophical qualifications of either life or consciousness, and just simply relying upon the strength of their argument from a societal standpoint.
Things like the basic claim that outlawing abortion does not prevent it from happening, but just makes it unsafe, to me, seems to have gained them considerably more ground than attempting to navigate their way through the rather elaborate set of philosophical arguments and rationalizations for Eugenics that the other party has only brought them into so as to make this debate go on forever.
You have completely mistaken my position. If you read through the exchange between @Gregory and me, what I have been doing is echoing @Gregorys position back at him.
E.g., here
He believes in Zygote Person-hood. I.e., the moment a sperm & egg fuse - that single cell organism (AKA zygote) is legally a human being - and any attempt to prevent the zygote or blastocyst from implanting in a woman's uterus is murder - it is no different than if you were to go into a maternity ward, garb a newborn by the legs and bash its skull on the floor.
However his position is wildly inconsistent, because he is OK with IVF - a process which inevitably leads to killing unused embryos which (again according to him) are human beings.
He is also wildly inconsistent in how he would treat people involved in abortions. He calls for the death penalty for the doctor (or person) performing the abortion, but there is no punishment for the woman - who is equally responsible for committing (again according to his belief) murder.
There is no point in trying to talk him out of his belief. He's locked in. The only thing you can do is to point out the logical consequences of such a belief.
I am a vegetarian. I used to eat bivalves because I had reasoned that, because they didn't have brains, they didn't have consciousness. I, later, came across a piece by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals about bivalves, explaining that they were capable of feeling pain. I, then, reasoned that being capable of feeling pain was a form of perception and that perception necessitates consciousness and stopped eating bivalves.
At this point in my life, I remembered getting into a debate with a friend of mine about abortion and vegetarianism. Because I was not well-versed in debate at this point in my life, he was capable of somehow walling me into defending an eco-Fascist pro-life position, which, I think, resulted in my just shouting at him in terminal frustration. He has kind of a knack for debate, but is also kind of one of those left-wing Liberals who, in any given conversation, has kind of a habit shifting the focus of the debate so as to somehow prove that the other party is lock, step, in line with the American Right.
Anyways, upon reflecting upon this, I came to suspect that it was kind of absurd for Feminists to attempt to prove to people who primarily are Christians that consciousness begins with something like the development of the cerebral cortex. It's absurd because it just shouldn't at all be requisite, but also because I just don't think that it can be done. I've never even taken an anatomy class, but I would assume that an embryo is somehow capable of responding to stimuli and that it probably has some degree of sentience before fully developing a cerebral cortex.
I later, came to wonder as, when there ought to be a wholly uncontroversial and incontrovertible assessment of the general plight that outlawing abortion just simply would incur, aside from the very obvious arguments there are to make in regards to a woman's autonomy, livelihood, and quality of life, to why it was that this sort of thing had become the entire focal point of the debate upon abortion. What I came to suspect is that pro-life advocates have intentionally led pro-choice advocates into what is a nebulous philosophical domain of qualifying life with which there is no prohibition upon eliminating as inextricably bound to consciousness so as to later slander them as being some sort of Eugenicists.
Perhaps, in some highly qualified philosophical sense, a person could prove that life can be ethically qualified as such and that some highly specified form of Eugenics is permissible. Within the general discourse, however, this would take such an extraordinary degree of abstraction and reasoning that, for any old person watching the debate on television, it'd be far too easy for the other party to just simply insinuate that they were somehow advocating for the systemic elimination of entire sectors of the global population. That the debate has culminated as such, I think, has been entirely intentional.
Though technically non-binary, I do identify as being male and am of the opinion that men only really have a place in the Feminist movement as allies, and, so, I should hope that it doesn't seem like I am making an attempt to secure any agency over the movement, but, as a bit of advice, I think that Feminists would be much more successful by relying upon the tried and true arguments that they do have to make for the legalization of abortion and just simply affirming and developing their basic principles than they would be in the general course that the debate has taken in attempting to make rather odd philosophical qualifications of life and to attempt to justify some highly specified form of Eugenics, as they have only been brought to do so so that pro-life advocates can continue to slander them.
To summarize, pro-choice advocates should not agree to the terms of debate as such, as pro-life advocates have not, in good faith, brought them into a conversation about the ethical consequences of family planning and are merely making an attempt to slander them as advocating for the systemic elimination of entire sectors of the population. The tried and true arguments in favor of the legalization of abortion and fundamental Feminist principles make for much better arguments than the rather abstract set of rationalizations and justifications for the near biopolitical initiative that pro-life advocates have led them to defend. I have included the anecdote about the argument with my friend to draw a parallel to what has happened in the course of this debate, and, though I claim no agency over the Feminist movement, as I generally identify as being male, will contend that this is just good advice. That is all.
Social death penalty is not murder
If I leave someone behind on a dangerous journey because i have to, that is not the same as shooting him in the head. And as for women, I don't think society should put the death penalty on them for those situations. You don't seem to like nuances except when it comes to the age for abortions
We shouldn't do it if it leads to deaths. It's been like talking to a wall. I've answered your questions like 8 times already
Quoting Gregory
IVF leads to death. This is a well proven fact. it leads to millions of deaths.
Quoting Gregory
Make up your mind. IVF leads to deaths. You say we shouldn't do it if it leads to deaths. The only logical conclusion is that IVF should be made illegal.
And if women are not punished for having abortions, then you are giving them tacit approval - there is no consequence for the woman. A woman can have as many abortions as she wants.
I am not trying to change your mind about Zygote Person hood - I have no illusions on that. I'm simply trying to get you to acknowledge your inconsistencies. Now it is not the end of the world to be consistent. Thoreau's famous quote comes to mind: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." But it is intellectually dishonest to deny the inconsistency.
Then it's wrong. You don't know how this stuff works because you are pro-choice. You don't understand how this matters work at all
Women and men are not the same. If a man is talking and the woman suddenly kisses him, that is not sexual assault. The other way around it is sexual assault. They are different creatures
Sorry, I'm not following your last response. Are you:
A) Changing your mind and now agreeing IVF should be outlawed because it leads to death?
OR
B) Saying that it's wrong but it should still be permitted?
It's not hard to understand. If they think their actions will lead to a situation where they reasonably need to let embryos die then that should be illegal. IVF is not immoral in itself. I am not concerned with peoples' sex lives or their reproductive decisions. The issue is solely about the right to life for me
It's not about what "they think". If "they" are evil Nazis who do not believe in Zygote Personhood and think that their actions will merely lead to destroying a clump of cells - does that make it OK in your book? Of course not. IVF almost inevitably leads to the destroying embryos. I gave you the links.
So I put it to you again. Per your belief system, IVF should be made illegal - and anyone who knowingly engages in the procedure should be put to death.
Meanwhile:
Quoting Gregory
This is too funny. How about if a man kisses another man or a woman kisses another woman? is that sexual assault? If you seriously believe that, I suggest you open up a new topic and see the responses you get.
But beyond that, WTF does this have to do with abortion? Are you somehow implying that woman are weak creatures and should not be held responsible for their actions?
I disagree.
IVF doesn't inherently have to lead to death and disregard to life.
Seriously? They are exactly the same as everyone else; they are just primates with pretty standard preferences attempting to lead happy lives; they aren't aliens.
Quoting Gregory
If there are mental differences, and I will admit there might be some slight ones, they aren't meaningful enough to treat men and women any differently. In your kissing example it very much would be sexual assault for the woman to kiss a man without permission.
Quoting Gregory
That is exactly not what punishment is about. Rehabilitation is more about that (or something like that; I don't - and many others don't - believe in souls).
Sorry for not reading all of the pages of comments. That gets a little cumbersome. Didn't mean to take you out of context.
This is a philosophy forum. If you wish to present a position it is not sufficient to say "it is far wiser" - you need to provide some justification.
If a woman were to take her born child and hold it down on a table struggling while letting someone else slice open it's stomach and let it bleed to death, then surely that woman (and the other person involved) is committing murder and should suffer the severest penalty possible
But yet in your opinion there are no legal consequences for a woman to kill her unborn child. Why? Why is it far wiser?
That matter is about social policy, not logical proof
Punishment hurts but it can save the criminal. As for the kissing thing, I don't see how a real man can claim he was sexually assaulted by a girl's kiss. You want to create a culture where it is hard to be a man
That is pretty fucked up, dude. A real man?
I wouldn't mind but that's beside the point. We are becoming a valueless society where women want themselves to be dominant and men to be submissive even though women don't generally like submissiveness in men and more and more women are becoming depressed in the West because of their "liberation"
Oh god, oh Jesus, oh sweet baby Jesus, I'm just being trolled, thank god.
I'm serious. Why do you care what I think anyway? If it bothers you maybe there is something you need to discover about yourself. I'm wasn't referring to necessarily being macho, but a lot of males act like females these days. I'm not going to respect a man acting like a girl, even if they are gay. Acting like a girl is just crossing the line. And likewise if a woman is going to refuse to turn on her femininity, how am I supposed to respect that
So according to you there are no legal consequences for a woman to murder her unborn child by any means - morning after pill, abortifacient, actual abortion, etc. But she should get the the most severe punishment legally allowed for murdering her born child. Yet according to you the unborn child is every bit a person as the born child.
How you hold these two contradictory positions in your mind is something I do not understand.
Our conversation is going around in circles. I'll repeat myself one more time. You have a very firm belief on this topic and I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm simply trying to help you understand the implications of your beliefs.
You are one very confused person. My only hope is that in the fullness of time you will figure this out.
I give you the last word.