Abortion

[Sieguest]

My point is that it is inconsistent to protect born babies but not fetuses, it is more logical to say that neither have a right to life.

The only difference between a baby and a fetus is the stage of development they are at.

No. you've yet to refute the claim that in the developmental time of the first 4-5 weeks of pregnancy that the baby is not human other than by pure speculation.

Both a baby and a fetus are predetermined to develop into mature humans. A zygote is different from a sperm and an egg, because a sperm and egg are not predetermined to develop into mature humans, unless they join together, making the zygote.

I've all ready pointed out how this is flawed, referring back to my example of one who knows biology but is only shown the zygote, and cannot determine that it is human. Although you'll more than likely say that this is using human ignorance, it shows the point between being able to call something human (at later points in the process when it actually adopts human features, being past the 5th week marker.) and not being able to call it human (within the first 4-5 weeks), and I've also shown how the personhood argument does not even match my criteria, so making points against that is not paralleled to making points against my claim.

Apart from the differing stages of development, the only difference between the two is that the baby is more 'alive', in that it displays emotions etc. However, this is irrelevant, because animals display emotions etc., but they clearly do not have an untouchable right to life, because we kill and exploit them for food, services and entertainment.

Incorrect, a baby also displays human features, unlike the zygote.

Even if you're an animal rights activist, it is part of nature that animals are frequently predated upon or are victims of territorial killings.

While the statement is true, you can't parallel what animals do and what we do, animals have to find any and all means to survive that they can, which is why it's natural that animal babies may be subject to predation of other species and even humans who just wish to use the area's resources. Humans on the other hand pretty much have all the resources available to them without much worry. Even those in dire straits have at least some means of being provided for.

So what we see here is that emotional capacity does not necessarily equate to right to life. Alot of animals are more intelligent than babies, yet do not have an untouchable right to life.

Again, I'll remark that you've made an inaccurate parallel as I displayed above. Also, you seem to miss the idea that I don't care for emotions or any of the sort in my claim. I am merely seeking that if you wish to prove that the zygote has the right to life, establish that it is all ready a living organism (which in the case of the human, establish that the zygote has proof of being human in of itself). Which, as far as I've seen, it isn't.

So now we go back to the personhood argument. It is clear that a baby does not exhibit true personhood. Now, considering that a baby is no different to other animals, being even less intelligent than some, by personhood argument logic you could not protect babies.

Again, the only way you could protect babies, and not other animals, is to find something that distinguishes babies from animals. The only thing that there is is that a baby has the potential to achieve personhood, and is predetermined to do so if nothing goes wrong. But, as I've said before, so does a fetus.

I addressed the fallacy in you using the personhood argument earlier in my post, but for the purpose of reiteration. The Personhood Argument in itself overshoots my criteria, making it non-applicable to use against my claim since it does not follow the criteria I stated.

 

[SuperBowser]

No offense Dre., but you are just repeating yourself instead of actually addressing any arguments...

I gave you a very important difference between a baby and a fetus. A woman's right to her own body is pretty big, no?

 

[Dre89]

No. you've yet to refute the claim that in the developmental time of the first 4-5 weeks of pregnancy that the baby is not human other than by pure speculation.

I've all ready pointed out how this is flawed, referring back to my example of one who knows biology but is only shown the zygote, and cannot determine that it is human. Although you'll more than likely say that this is using human ignorance, it shows the point between being able to call something human (at later points in the process when it actually adopts human features, being past the 5th week marker.) and not being able to call it human (within the first 4-5 weeks), and I've also shown how the personhood argument does not even match my criteria, so making points against that is not paralleled to making points against my claim.

But all you have is specualtion and estimation of when it has life. Terminating lives because someone cannot recognise it as human is still foolish. The human lifecycle begins with the conception of the zygote. At this point, it is a single, unified entity whose natural course is to develop into a mature human. If a zygote could develop into anything other than a human, or a human could be conceived without a zygote, then maybe you would have a point.

And yes, your argument does relate to the personhood argument, you just don't realise it. It's fact that the human life cycle begins with a zygote. This is the first point of call in which if you were to remove it (the zygote), a human would not be able to be conceived. In other words, you cannot have a human without a zygote. It is also the first point where you have a single unified entity whose natural course is to develop into a mature human.

So yes you are applying the personhood argument, because you are saying that despite this, it only attains a right to life at a certain point in the life cycle, which is exactly what the PA is.

Incorrect, a baby also displays human features, unlike the zygote.

It displays mature human features. See how many humans you can make without zygotes.

While the statement is true, you can't parallel what animals do and what we do, animals have to find any and all means to survive that they can, which is why it's natural that animal babies may be subject to predation of other species and even humans who just wish to use the area's resources. Humans on the other hand pretty much have all the resources available to them without much worry. Even those in dire straits have at least some means of being provided for.

But you didn't deny the fact that at the baby stage it still doesn't exhibit traits that distinguish humans from animals. So what we can conclude is what a baby displays is only the capacities that mature animals have, which themselves are not warranted a right to life.

Again, I'll remark that you've made an inaccurate parallel as I displayed above. Also, you seem to miss the idea that I don't care for emotions or any of the sort in my claim. I am merely seeking that if you wish to prove that the zygote has the right to life, establish that it is all ready a living organism (which in the case of the human, establish that the zygote has proof of being human in of itself). Which, as far as I've seen, it isn't.

What I established is that it is necessary to the human life cycle. A zygote a unified entity which develops into a mature human, and can only move in this direction of nothing stops it, and is necessary for human conception.

You are arguing that a right to life is only warranted when one displays emotional capacities, but by that logic animals would have a right to life too.

I addressed the fallacy in you using the personhood argument earlier in my post, but for the purpose of reiteration. The Personhood Argument in itself overshoots my criteria, making it non-applicable to use against my claim since it does not follow the criteria I stated.

I showed before how you are in fact applying the PA. I also showed how your criteria is flawed, because it would then permit animals a right to life which they clearly do not have.

 

[Sieguest]

But all you have is specualtion and estimation of when it has life. Terminating lives because someone cannot recognise it as human is still foolish. The human lifecycle begins with the conception of the zygote. At this point, it is a single, unified entity whose natural course is to develop into a mature human. If a zygote could develop into anything other than a human, or a human could be conceived without a zygote, then maybe you would have a point.

Estimation from a credible source. It's common biology that within the first 4-5 weeks, the "human" is nothing but cells. And you can't really call it speculation if I've posted a source detailing the maturing of an zygote. (In the same source I aforementioned.)

Since I've been out of town (UIL tournament), I happened to have a good talk with a friend over this topic. He convinced me that one could prove the Embryo is a human by counting the chromosomes, and as I can't find any other animal that matches the chromosome count of a human, I've come to accept that.

The only problem I see, is establishing it has life- Earlier I posted the denotative meaning of the word "life." And looking at the zygote in the first weeks, it doesn't display all of those specifications.
Technically, you can't say you killed a human if it never lived.
What do you propose proves that a zygote is living?

And yes, your argument does relate to the personhood argument, you just don't realise it. It's fact that the human life cycle begins with a zygote. This is the first point of call in which if you were to remove it (the zygote), a human would not be able to be conceived. In other words, you cannot have a human without a zygote. It is also the first point where you have a single unified entity whose natural course is to develop into a mature human.

So yes you are applying the personhood argument, because you are saying that despite this, it only attains a right to life at a certain point in the life cycle, which is exactly what the PA is.

If I remember correctly, you tried to parallel my claim to the PA on the basis that I required that an emotional trait be displayed, which isn't true.
In this instance of the PA, I suppose I am applying, but now considering what I have said above, I'm now looking for what is wrong with disposing of something that isn't living yet, and if it's not living, you haven't killed it.

But you didn't deny the fact that at the baby stage it still doesn't exhibit traits that distinguish humans from animals. So what we can conclude is what a baby displays is only the capacities that mature animals have, which themselves are not warranted a right to life.

At the baby stage, it's quite clear that it is human. Regarding the point you made, I could say that no one has a "right to life".
Our lives could be taken at any moment, justified in the respects of the murderer.

What I established is that it is necessary to the human life cycle. A zygote a unified entity which develops into a mature human, and can only move in this direction of nothing stops it, and is necessary for human conception.

You are arguing that a right to life is only warranted when one displays emotional capacities, but by that logic animals would have a right to life too.

Or by my logic one could say that none have a right to life, see above.

 

[Dre89]

Estimation from a credible source. It's common biology that within the first 4-5 weeks, the "human" is nothing but cells. And you can't really call it speculation if I've posted a source detailing the maturing of an zygote. (In the same source I aforementioned.)

The speculation is to whether it deserves protection or not.

Since I've been out of town (UIL tournament), I happened to have a good talk with a friend over this topic. He convinced me that one could prove the Embryo is a human by counting the chromosomes, and as I can't find any other animal that matches the chromosome count of a human, I've come to accept that.

But that shouldn't matter though, it's not about how much life it has, which I'll explain later on.

The only problem I see, is establishing it has life- Earlier I posted the denotative meaning of the word "life." And looking at the zygote in the first weeks, it doesn't display all of those specifications.
Technically, you can't say you killed a human if it never lived.
What do you propose proves that a zygote is living?

Again, I'm not trying to prove it's living, I'm saying that it is predetermined to attain personhood. I want it protected because it has the potentially to achieve personhood.

Now before you ask how is this different from the sperm and an egg, which can achieve personhood, I'll explain it. The sperm annd the egg are two separate entities, and left to their devices they do not develop into humans. Once a zygote is conceived however, you have a single, unfified entity, which left to its devices, will develop into a mature human. The entire purpose of the zygote is to do just that.


What we see is that the human life cycle begins when there is a unfied entity predertmined to develop into a mature human.

If I remember correctly, you tried to parallel my claim to the PA on the basis that I required that an emotional trait be displayed, which isn't true.
In this instance of the PA, I suppose I am applying, but now considering what I have said above, I'm now looking for what is wrong with disposing of something that isn't living yet, and if it's not living, you haven't killed it.

The reason why your argument is a PA is not because of the emotional trait, it's because you're willing to terminate it after the human life cycle has begun. Because the life cycle, as explained above, begins at the conception of the zygote, you're arguing that it only has a right to life at a certain stage in that process.

This is why it is a PA, because you're arguing that it only achieves personhood at point X (where you no longer feel you have the right to terminate it).

At the baby stage, it's quite clear that it is human. Regarding the point you made, I could say that no one has a "right to life".
Our lives could be taken at any moment, justified in the respects of the murderer.

That's not through a natural course. And no, a baby is just closer to the mature human stage. Neither a baby or fetus exhibit traits that distingusih humans from animals.

Or by my logic one could say that none have a right to life, see above.

I addressed this above.

 

[Sieguest]

But that shouldn't matter though, it's not about how much life it has, which I'll explain later on.

I think it does.
Why do you think Abortion is wrong?
The answer people give:
Because it is robbing a human life.


Now, if the zygote doesn't have life, then you can't claim that abortion is robbing the zygote of life. In that case, there is no possible way that abortion breaks any legal laws anywhere. The only thing someone could stick on it is their own moral laws, and that doesn't match from person to person.

Again, I'm not trying to prove it's living, I'm saying that it is predetermined to attain personhood. I want it protected because it has the potentially to achieve personhood.

Just because something has the potential or is going to be something in the future doesn't justify it's assured admission in the present.

I have the potential to become a great musician, in fact, at the rate I'm going, I'll make an All-State Orchestra next year. But at the past audition, despite my potential and what's to come, I wasn't good enough then. So I wasn't let in.

And if you're not trying to prove it's living, then what's wrong with abortion? If the fetus has no life, then you cannot kill it. You break no legal laws in any place in that case. And bringing in moral laws hold no water except on the person who holds those beliefs.
It's like me throwing a rock into the ocean.

What we see is that the human life cycle begins when there is a unfied entity predertmined to develop into a mature human.

The human life cycle begins when the organism actually displays life.

The reason why your argument is a PA is not because of the emotional trait, it's because you're willing to terminate it after the human life cycle has begun. Because the life cycle, as explained above, begins at the conception of the zygote, you're arguing that it only has a right to life at a certain stage in that process.

This is why it is a PA, because you're arguing that it only achieves personhood at point X (where you no longer feel you have the right to terminate it).

That's pretty much how I look at it. Until that thing displays life then there is nothing wrong with getting rid of it.

That's not through a natural course. And no, a baby is just closer to the mature human stage. Neither a baby or fetus exhibit traits that distingusih humans from animals.

A baby and an animal exhibit life, a fetus does not.

 

[Dre89]

I think it does.
Why do you think Abortion is wrong?
The answer people give:
Because it is robbing a human life..

But then sufficient life for protection just comes down to personal interpretation, there's no definitive line that everyone will agree, and that's because it clearly isn't natural to abort fetuses.

Now, if the zygote doesn't have life, then you can't claim that abortion is robbing the zygote of life. In that case, there is no possible way that abortion breaks any legal laws anywhere. The only thing someone could stick on it is their own moral laws, and that doesn't match from person to person.

So if I took every single chicken egg in the world and destroyed it, are you saying I'm not robbing the chicken species of life?

More importantly, I never said it didn't have life, I just said the extent to which it exhibits traits of the living is irrelevant. It certainly is a living being, considering that it grows, and is predetermined to grow into a mature human.

Just because something has the potential or is going to be something in the future doesn't justify it's assured admission in the present.

I have the potential to become a great musician, in fact, at the rate I'm going, I'll make an All-State Orchestra next year. But at the past audition, despite my potential and what's to come, I wasn't good enough then. So I wasn't let in.

You and I both know that is not a natural, biological course.

And if you're not trying to prove it's living, then what's wrong with abortion? If the fetus has no life, then you cannot kill it. You break no legal laws in any place in that case. And bringing in moral laws hold no water except on the person who holds those beliefs.
It's like me throwing a rock into the ocean.

Again, I never said it had no life, i just said the extent to which it shows life is not relevant. It clearly is living if it grows.

What I'm bringing is natural laws. It's pretty evident nature didn't want us to abort fetuses. You're also bringing in your personal interpretation of when it displays sufficient life for portection, assuming that your personal idea of showing sufficient life is the proper criteria for deciding protection or not is correct.

Mine isn't just a personal belief, my argument is actually derived from the laws of nature.

The human life cycle begins when the organism actually displays life.

So how can something grow without being alive?

If you believe it only displays life at X weeks, the only reason why it displays it then and not beforehand is because it grew to that stage first.

Remove the zygote and see how many humans you get. Actually, your argument would permit the termination of every single fetus in the world that is conceived from this point onward.

Now assuming that you're a normal person and can understand the complications that this notion presents, how do you then work around this? How do you discriminate between who can kill their babies and who can't for the preservation of the species? Aren't you then infringing on the rights of the parents by this discrimination?

That's pretty much how I look at it. Until that thing displays life then there is nothing wrong with getting rid of it.

Explained above.

A baby and an animal exhibit life, a fetus does not.

But an animal doesn't have a right to life, so why does a baby?

 

[Sieguest]

But then sufficient life for protection just comes down to personal interpretation, there's no definitive line that everyone will agree, and that's because it clearly isn't natural to abort fetuses.

Says who? There's no definitive line because people can't prove that it's alive!

So if I took every single chicken egg in the world and destroyed it, are you saying I'm not robbing the chicken species of life?

Taken out of context. In reference to the individual, no you're not taking life. To the species as a whole, you are. But then there are no laws saying that taking the life from a species in a way as indirect as that is illegal.

More importantly, I never said it didn't have life, I just said the extent to which it exhibits traits of the living is irrelevant. It certainly is a living being, considering that it grows, and is predetermined to grow into a mature human.

How is it living? I know I've posted this before, but how can you call it living. That is the denotative meaning of life. As far as I see, it only exhibits growth by reproduction, which is one of the three specifications of "life."

1. Growth through metabolism- If I'm in my right mind, those cells don't metabolize.


2. Reproduction- You could say they reproduce by splitting into more cells.

3. Power of adaptation to the environment through changes internally- Doesn't begin to happen until the fifth week. Being the upper bound of the time frame I'm arguing

You and I both know that is not a natural, biological course.

But it demonstrates that predestination does not entitle anything to any given end.

What I'm bringing is natural laws. It's pretty evident nature didn't want us to abort fetuses. You're also bringing in your personal interpretation of when it displays sufficient life for portection, assuming that your personal idea of showing sufficient life is the proper criteria for deciding protection or not is correct.

How do you know nature didn't want us to abort fetuses? Does nature approve of overpopulation? Does it approve of those babies that will be born only to live a short and painful life? If that's the case, then natuaral law seems more detrmental than helpful.

As to my criteria of life- if it's personal, then how come it came from dictionary source?

Mine isn't just a personal belief, my argument is actually derived from the laws of nature.

Again, I'll ask do the laws of nature take anything into account other than protecting itself? Overpopulation, children destined to be short-lived, children who's lives end up questionable? Is that what natural law supports?

So how can something grow without being alive?

How do mineral deposits form?
How do stalactites and stalagmites form?

There is an external source doing everything for the fetus. The only specification of life the fetus performs is reproduce, it's still missing two other pieces of the puzzle.

If you believe it only displays life at X weeks, the only reason why it displays it then and not beforehand is because it grew to that stage first.

see above.

Remove the zygote and see how many humans you get. Actually, your argument would permit the termination of every single fetus in the world that is conceived from this point onward.

Now assuming that you're a normal person and can understand the complications that this notion presents, how do you then work around this? How do you discriminate between who can kill their babies and who can't for the preservation of the species? Aren't you then infringing on the rights of the parents by this discrimination?

Seeing as how abortion is a choice, it's not really discriminatory.

If you're referring to people before this "point" and people after this "point" then both still had the choice for abortion, it's not been declared illegal so there is no discrimination there either.

But an animal doesn't have a right to life, so why does a baby?

A baby doesn't either. I've said earlier that no one truly has a right to live as life can be taken from us in an instant.

The only thing one could even say is a right to "life" is a piece of paper saying that the murdering of another human is unlawful and will be punished.

 

[Dre89]

Says who? There's no definitive line because people can't prove that it's alive!

The definitive line is when it becomes a single, growing entity which is required for the development of a mature human. That seems pretty clear to me.

You assume that is has to show signs of living, more specifically, intellect, emotion etc. for it to be protected from termination. You assume your argument is sound because within your own criteria your argument is correct, but what I'm challenging is the criteria you've set, not the way i nwhich you have tried to fill that criteria.

In other words, let's analyse the implications of something only attaining protection once it displays it sufficient signs of intelligence, emotion etc. Sufficient by your standards that is. Why must it show these for protection?

Why then can we not terminate the life of someone temporarily in a coma? The only distinction is that the person has emotional attachments, but you yourself said it was not an argument from emotion, so what exactly is the distinction? A person temporarily in a coma shows no more signs of life than a fetus does.

Arguing that the coma victim has the sufficient means to be living is implausible, considering that they will only be able to be employed in the future, yet a fetus will develop sufficient means in teh future as well.

I fail to see where the distinction is.

Taken out of context. In reference to the individual, no you're not taking life. To the species as a whole, you are. But then there are no laws saying that taking the life from a species in a way as indirect as that is illegal.

Do you honestly believe that the law equates to justice or morality?

If not, then whether something is illegal or not is irrelevant, because this topic pertains to the morality of abortion, not its legality.

If you do believe the law equates to justice, then you're not of the adequate intellect to be having this debate lol, but then again I doubt you really do believe this.

If you're a moral relativist, then you should be spending your time justifying your relativism rather than debating abortion specifically (although that would be slightly off-topic.

How is it living? I know I've posted this before, but how can you call it living. That is the denotative meaning of life. As far as I see, it only exhibits growth by reproduction, which is one of the three specifications of "life."

1. Growth through metabolism- If I'm in my right mind, those cells don't metabolize.


2. Reproduction- You could say they reproduce by splitting into more cells.

3. Power of adaptation to the environment through changes internally- Doesn't begin to happen until the fifth week. Being the upper bound of the time frame I'm arguing

But what we do know is that is a single entity which is growing into a mature human. In fact, it is the only way to achieve a mature human.

But it demonstrates that predestination does not entitle anything to any given end.

No, it demonstrates that there is a distinction between non-predetermined actions initiated by conscious thought, and natural growth, which is a one-way (in the sense that there is no other natural option until old-age, in which the reverse occurs) development external to the control of the mind. In fact, with growth we get the growth of the mind.

So again, two completely different examples.

How do you know nature didn't want us to abort fetuses? Does nature approve of overpopulation? Does it approve of those babies that will be born only to live a short and painful life? If that's the case, then natuaral law seems more detrmental than helpful.

As to my criteria of life- if it's personal, then how come it came from dictionary source?

Again, I'll ask do the laws of nature take anything into account other than protecting itself? Overpopulation, children destined to be short-lived, children who's lives end up questionable? Is that what natural law supports?

So you're assuming now that a parent has the right to terminate a child's life is they feel the child's life is not worth living? Why then can a parent not terminate the life of a two-year old?

How do mineral deposits form?
How do stalactites and stalagmites form?

There is an external source doing everything for the fetus. The only specification of life the fetus performs is reproduce, it's still missing two other pieces of the puzzle.



see above.



Seeing as how abortion is a choice, it's not really discriminatory.

If you're referring to people before this "point" and people after this "point" then both still had the choice for abortion, it's not been declared illegal so there is no discrimination there either.

I'm saying that if every baby from this point on was terminated, humanity would be in danger of extinction.

Assuming you're a sane human being, that is not desirable, so measures have to be taken to prevent that. But if abortion was morally permissible, what's stopping us from getting into that position? And then once we're in that position where we nearly go extinct, people would have to start procreating, but how do you discriminate which people those are?

You may say that this example is not relevant, but I'm showing that it is not natural to abort children, because it can result in a clearly unnatural state for human civilisation. Something natural should be able to be universialsied, but as we've seen, if you universialise abortion it is clearly unnatural.

A baby doesn't either. I've said earlier that no one truly has a right to live as life can be taken from us in an instant.

The only thing one could even say is a right to "life" is a piece of paper saying that the murdering of another human is unlawful and will be punished.

A right to life is different from immunity from death. A right can be violated, but the violator would be crossing a moral line into immorality. What you're arguing is that it is immoral to kill born babies, but not fetuses. It's also ok to kill animals, some of which display greater capacities that born babies. What I want to know is why you believe it is immoral to kill a baby but not an animal.

 

[SuperBowser]

Dre., why don't you answer my question?

I think it gives a very good basis for a response to your assertions that a person in a coma is no different to a fetus.

 

[Dre89]

Aside from the fact there is a physical difference between 16 cells and a baby; a fetus is a parasite on the woman's body, a baby is not.

I'm not sure if you've read the rest of this thread, but I answer this question multiple times.

The problem, is the pro-abortion argument is inconsistent, because you want to protect a born baby but not a fetus, when there is no reason to discriminate between them.

Yes they are at different stages of development, but neither of them has achieved the personhood stage (where they exhibit traits that distinguish humans from animals).

Therefore, a newly born baby has only displayed the capacities of an animal, yet an animal clearly doesn't have the right to life humans have. What I'm asking is why we can kill animals, but not born babies, when there is no distinction in there capabilities. The insinctive answer is to say that a baby will develop personhood, but then so will a fetus, so you would have to protect it too.

So again, I know there are differences between a baby and a fetus, but the differences don't justify treating them differently.

With regards to the mother's right to her body, I covered this before as well. In cases of abortion, she doesn't, because she is causedly responsible for the babies state of dependancy on her. In other words, whether it be **** or consensual, the only reason why the baby is in that position is because of her.

The equivalent of a **** abortion is like me lending you a thousand dollars, then someone steals it off you. Even though you were innocent, you still owe me a grand. A **** abortion is simply not paying the money back because you feel you don't have to because your innocent, and having the other person (me) suffer because of something that happened to you, not me.

Another example is someone drpping a ticking bomb in your backyard, then you throwing it over the fence to the next yard. The only reason why your neighbour is now in trouble is because of you, it doesn't matter whether you're innocent or not, you don't shift the problem onto an innocent third party, because you were the one who incurred that problem in the first place.

 

[SuperBowser]

With regards to the mother's right to her body, I covered this before as well. In cases of abortion, she doesn't, because she is causedly responsible for the babies state of dependancy on her. In other words, whether it be **** or consensual, the only reason why the baby is in that position is because of her.

This does not matter though. Stating that the fetus exists because of the woman's body is a fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

Suppose I own a house. I return one day to find a scared, homeless, starving man in my kitchen eating my food and using my things. He tells me if I don't let him stay for 10 months he will be killed by someone and my house is the only place for him to hide.

Is it morally correct to kick him out? Debatable.
Is it legally correct to kick him out? Absolutely.

A fetus is no different. It is an unwelcome guest in a body that causes much physiological and psychological stress. Why shouldn't a woman have a say in what happens and does not happen inside her own body?

 

[Sieguest]

The definitive line is when it becomes a single, growing entity which is required for the development of a mature human. That seems pretty clear to me.

You assume that is has to show signs of living, more specifically, intellect, emotion etc. for it to be protected from termination. You assume your argument is sound because within your own criteria your argument is correct, but what I'm challenging is the criteria you've set, not the way i nwhich you have tried to fill that criteria.


In other words, let's analyse the implications of something only attaining protection once it displays it sufficient signs of intelligence, emotion etc. Sufficient by your standards that is. Why must it show these for protection?

I don't really know where you're pulling that emotion falls into my standard, but I'll say again that I never said that it had to display emotion, nor did I say it had to display intellect. It just needs "life".
The reason I set my limit there is because I believe that if it is not living, then there is nothing wrong with doing away with it.

Why then can we not terminate the life of someone temporarily in a coma? The only distinction is that the person has emotional attachments, but you yourself said it was not an argument from emotion, so what exactly is the distinction? A person temporarily in a coma shows no more signs of life than a fetus does.

Because a person in a coma still displays life, he/she still metabolizes and adapts, and still has the capacity to reproduce. Although that probably won't happen for obvious reasons.
A fetus on the other hand cannot metabolize. Nor does significant adaptation to its surroundings occur until the past the time specified.

Do you honestly believe that the law equates to justice or morality?

If not, then whether something is illegal or not is irrelevant, because this topic pertains to the morality of abortion, not its legality.

If you do believe the law equates to justice, then you're not of the adequate intellect to be having this debate lol, but then again I doubt you really do believe this.

If you're a moral relativist, then you should be spending your time justifying your relativism rather than debating abortion specifically (although that would be slightly off-topic.

Insults at me don't really prove anything. I will say that I feel a discussion based completely upon morality is a discussion that is bound to get nowhere for the simple reason that we cannot impose any "moral law" upon someone else. We cannot truly define what is good and what is evil. One could say "then you're technically saying we shouldn't have laws because laws are based on morals." Then one considers how that "law" is universally accepted. You cannot necessarily label that as evil, but only as a ramification to a certain action which has been agreed upon by the world. (I know there are a few things others can say against this, but I'll save that for another topic.)

But what we do know is that is a single entity which is growing into a mature human. In fact, it is the only way to achieve a mature human.

That still doesn't prove that it's necessarily living.

No, it demonstrates that there is a distinction between non-predetermined actions initiated by conscious thought, and natural growth, which is a one-way (in the sense that there is no other natural option until old-age, in which the reverse occurs) development external to the control of the mind. In fact, with growth we get the growth of the mind.

So again, two completely different examples.

Fair enough.

So you're assuming now that a parent has the right to terminate a child's life is they feel the child's life is not worth living? Why then can a parent not terminate the life of a two-year old?

Incorrect assumption. If during the time period of a supposed "morally correct" abortion, the parent knows that the child shall live a short and cruel life, or one of a negatively questionable result; they should have the right to spare the child its misery.

But having said that, I've noticed I've made quite an oversight, seeing as one cannot determine whether a child is doomed or not until it is actually "living" and can actually have these fatal flaws.

I'm saying that if every baby from this point on was terminated, humanity would be in danger of extinction.

Incorrect assumption. Your assertion assumes that every mother will choose to abort their child, and that's just preposterous. Abortion is a choice, and for those who have the same views as you do, then what you're saying is a virtual impossibility.

Assuming you're a sane human being, that is not desirable, so measures have to be taken to prevent that. But if abortion was morally permissible, what's stopping us from getting into that position? And then once we're in that position where we nearly go extinct, people would have to start procreating, but how do you discriminate which people those are?

Again, your assertion is stating something that is preposterous, see above. In fact, you should know the answer to the question you just asked. It's the moral of the individual, those who share the same morals as you obviously wouldn't abort.

And again, it is a choice, one cannot say, "you're going to abort your child" or "you're going to have the child." It is up to the person, not some outside entity on whether abortion is a path they'll travel.

You may say that this example is not relevant, but I'm showing that it is not natural to abort children, because it can result in a clearly unnatural state for human civilisation. Something natural should be able to be universialsied, but as we've seen, if you universialise abortion it is clearly unnatural.

The same could be said for being forced to have a child if a woman becomes pregnant. That can also lead to an unnatural state of human civilization. We even experience the ramifications of committing to the baby to this day.

A right to life is different from immunity from death. A right can be violated, but the violator would be crossing a moral line into immorality. What you're arguing is that it is immoral to kill born babies, but not fetuses. It's also ok to kill animals, some of which display greater capacities that born babies. What I want to know is why you believe it is immoral to kill a baby but not an animal.

See paragraph on morality.

Yes they are at different stages of development, but neither of them has achieved the personhood stage (where they exhibit traits that distinguish humans from animals).

Therefore, a newly born baby has only displayed the capacities of an animal, yet an animal clearly doesn't have the right to life humans have. What I'm asking is why we can kill animals, but not born babies, when there is no distinction in there capabilities. The insinctive answer is to say that a baby will develop personhood, but then so will a fetus, so you would have to protect it too.

So again, I know there are differences between a baby and a fetus, but the differences don't justify treating them differently.

Here's the crux, using the denotative definition of "life":
A born baby has life.
A fetus does not.

 

[Dre89]

This does not matter though. Stating that the fetus exists because of the woman's body is a fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

Suppose I own a house. I return one day to find a scared, homeless, starving man in my kitchen eating my food and using my things. He tells me if I don't let him stay for 10 months he will be killed by someone and my house is the only place for him to hide.

Is it morally correct to kick him out? Debatable.
Is it legally correct to kick him out? Absolutely.

A fetus is no different. It is an unwelcome guest in a body that causes much physiological and psychological stress. Why shouldn't a woman have a say in what happens and does not happen inside her own body?

See you've completely missed my point, you didn't really understand my argument at all, you made the same mistake Judith Thomson made.

There's a signifcant difference between that and **** abortion.

The man in the example, is like a parasite- he invades the body against the will of the host and violates the right to their body, whilst exhausting the bodies' resources. If the para does not invade a body, it dies. In this sense, it has a 'state of dependancy'(SOD), because it needs to the body to survive.

The difference between the para and the **** abortion is how the SOD is accquired. In the case of the parasite, or the man in the house, you are not responsible for its SOD, it has nothing to do with you at all, whether you existed or not would have made no difference.

With a fetus however, the onyl reason why it has a SOD is ebcause of you, you are causedly responsible for the fetus' state of dependancy. It doesn't matter whether the mother was ***** or it was consensual, she is the one who has put the baby in that position. To put someone in a SOD and then kill them for your own interests and justifying through being innocent would allow me to throw a ticking bomb someone dropped yard in my over the fence into my neighbour's yard, and give them the SOD, simply because I was innocent.

You see, when you are responsible for someone's SOD, you are morally obliged to put them before yourself. If I lend you a thousand dollars and it gets stolen off you, are you not going to pay me back simply because you were innocent? That's punishing an innocent third party (me) for something that happened to you, that's exactly what a **** abortion is.

I hope I made myself clear now.

 

[Dre89]

I don't really know where you're pulling that emotion falls into my standard, but I'll say again that I never said that it had to display emotion, nor did I say it had to display intellect. It just needs "life".
The reason I set my limit there is because I believe that if it is not living, then there is nothing wrong with doing away with it.

If it still has no emotion, pleasure pain etc., then why is it any different to terminating a one-week old fetus? The experience of termination for the fetus itself won't be any different, so why does 'living' make it any different?

Why is it when it metabolises and adapts etc. it all of a sudden has a right to life? When is the actual instant it achieves this right? So you could terminate a fetus, but had you done it two seconds later, the baby may have developed these traits of life and it would have been immoral.

Because a person in a coma still displays life, he/she still metabolizes and adapts, and still has the capacity to reproduce. Although that probably won't happen for obvious reasons.
A fetus on the other hand cannot metabolize. Nor does significant adaptation to its surroundings occur until the past the time specified.

Again, if the experience of termination for the agent will be the same, as they do not have emotion, pleasure pain, ie. the agent cannot appreciate the experience of termination, why does having these 'traits of life' make it any different?

Yes it has life, but then what is it about having life that gives it the right to life? Plenty of plants and animals display far more advanced capacities than a person in a coma, so why don't they get a right to life?

Insults at me don't really prove anything. I will say that I feel a discussion based completely upon morality is a discussion that is bound to get nowhere for the simple reason that we cannot impose any "moral law" upon someone else. We cannot truly define what is good and what is evil. One could say "then you're technically saying we shouldn't have laws because laws are based on morals." Then one considers how that "law" is universally accepted. You cannot necessarily label that as evil, but only as a ramification to a certain action which has been agreed upon by the world. (I know there are a few things others can say against this, but I'll save that for another topic.)

What you've shown is that what you care for is what is socially agreeable, not moral integrity, because you believe that cannot be known or achieved. That's a very modern thing, so it seems you've been influenced by your time, had you lived in a different age you may have had very different ideas.

That still doesn't prove that it's necessarily living.

But as I've mentioned previously, you've drawn a line at when it becomes living, but you haven't really explained why it should only have a right to life once it achieves this state.

Incorrect assumption. If during the time period of a supposed "morally correct" abortion, the parent knows that the child shall live a short and cruel life, or one of a negatively questionable result; they should have the right to spare the child its misery.

But having said that, I've noticed I've made quite an oversight, seeing as one cannot determine whether a child is doomed or not until it is actually "living" and can actually have these fatal flaws.

This shouldn't really come into play, if it's not worthy of a right to life, then the parents can kill the baby for whatever reason they please. If it has a right to life, it is no different to a born child, in which a parent does not have the right to terminate in foresight of an undesirable future.

Incorrect assumption. Your assertion assumes that every mother will choose to abort their child, and that's just preposterous. Abortion is a choice, and for those who have the same views as you do, then what you're saying is a virtual impossibility.



Again, your assertion is stating something that is preposterous, see above. In fact, you should know the answer to the question you just asked. It's the moral of the individual, those who share the same morals as you obviously wouldn't abort.

And again, it is a choice, one cannot say, "you're going to abort your child" or "you're going to have the child." It is up to the person, not some outside entity on whether abortion is a path they'll travel.

What I'm saying is that if everyone became convinced that abortion was permissable, there would be nothing stopping us from dying out through aborting every baby from now on.

It doesn't matter how improbable the occurrence, is what I'm showing is that it can't be universalised, meaning it is most likely not natural.

The same could be said for being forced to have a child if a woman becomes pregnant. That can also lead to an unnatural state of human civilization. We even experience the ramifications of committing to the baby to this day.

I think it's safe to say that suffering is a far more natural state than the extinction of humanity.

Here's the crux, using the denotative definition of "life":
A born baby has life.
A fetus does not.

Your argument is circular. You put your argument forward, as if showing particular signs of life (becuase according to you growth is not a sign of life, even though all living beings do it, and only living beings do it) is the only time a human being achieves a right to life, as if this objectively true, then as soon as I show problematic implications and inconsistenceies in your arguments, you revert to your moral relativism, and that we cannot agree on moral beliefs. You're clearly applying double standards to cover your tracks.

 

[SuperBowser]

The difference between the para and the **** abortion is how the SOD is accquired. In the case of the parasite, or the man in the house, you are not responsible for its SOD, it has nothing to do with you at all, whether you existed or not would have made no difference.

So what? You haven't demonstrated why this difference matters. You simply assert that this supposed difference matters. I'd even argue there is no difference. If I didn't keep such a nice safe house, the man never would have come inside! It must be my fault for buying, maintaining and protecting such a nice property.

I'm arguing this supposed difference does not matter because if we were to look at any other area of life there would be no doubt on the matter. If someone was to ever enter my property, I will have the right to remove them. End of. Regardless of why and how they got there and regardless of what would happen should they be forcibly removed, this power will always be mine.

In that sense, a woman has a right to her own property too, or if you'd rather, her own body. It is her will whether something may enter it and if or when it should be removed. Not the guest's.

Your examples miss the point. The ticking bomb cannot take precedence over my rights. The money lending example just doesn't work.

 

[Sieguest]

If it still has no emotion, pleasure pain etc., then why is it any different to terminating a one-week old fetus? The experience of termination for the fetus itself won't be any different, so why does 'living' make it any different?

Because the difference between living and non-living encompasses the moral character of the controversy.

Why is it when it metabolises and adapts etc. it all of a sudden has a right to life? When is the actual instant it achieves this right? So you could terminate a fetus, but had you done it two seconds later, the baby may have developed these traits of life and it would have been immoral.

A person of the moral fiber I assume you have should know this. Because then you're actually killing the fetus. The actual instant this begins happening differential by a period of a day or so, but definitely happening past the fifth week (end of -start of 6th)

Again, if the experience of termination for the agent will be the same, as they do not have emotion, pleasure pain, ie. the agent cannot appreciate the experience of termination, why does having these 'traits of life' make it any different?

Because the fact of living revolves around most people's moral idea of killing, since you can't technically kill something that isn't alive, then that moral question is eliminated.

Yes it has life, but then what is it about having life that gives it the right to life? Plenty of plants and animals display far more advanced capacities than a person in a coma, so why don't they get a right to life?

Because animals don't have anything saying that they can't kill each other.
For humans there is the law. And as we both seem to agree the law can't really secure that right, but it's the ramifications of violating that law, and the general agreement amongst the people that establish what we may call a psuedo-right (because you and I have both agreed that nothing truly has a right to live if I remember correctly)

What you've shown is that what you care for is what is socially agreeable, not moral integrity, because you believe that cannot be known or achieved. That's a very modern thing, so it seems you've been influenced by your time, had you lived in a different age you may have had very different ideas.

I don't think I care for what is socially agreeable as well, my evidence being this discussion we have now. I feel that those who are for abortion, even if on a limited scale, are in the minority. while it is true a lot of what I say is based somewhat on universally accepted laws, there are some laws that I don't agree with. But you may be right in what you say.

But as I've mentioned previously, you've drawn a line at when it becomes living, but you haven't really explained why it should only have a right to life once it achieves this state.

Because then it eliminates the moral question of "killing".

What I'm saying is that if everyone became convinced that abortion was permissable, there would be nothing stopping us from dying out through aborting every baby from now on.

It doesn't matter how improbable the occurrence, is what I'm showing is that it can't be universalised, meaning it is most likely not natural.



I think it's safe to say that suffering is a far more natural state than the extinction of humanity.

As if we won't die out due to the depletion of resources? So not really.

Your argument is circular. You put your argument forward, as if showing particular signs of life (becuase according to you growth is not a sign of life, even though all living beings do it, and only living beings do it) is the only time a human being achieves a right to life, as if this objectively true, then as soon as I show problematic implications and inconsistenceies in your arguments, you revert to your moral relativism, and that we cannot agree on moral beliefs. You're clearly applying double standards to cover your tracks.

First off, the part you put in parantheses is incorrect, I've stated multiple times that growth through metabolization is one part of living, but that's only piece of the puzzle (a piece it doesn't have) also, just because this growth doesn't apply to the fetus before actually gaining life doesn't mean I outright deny growth as a factor of life seeing as how the definition even has it in there, just not in a method applicable to the fetus. Even if it did fulfill that requirement remember I listed three things that must all be displayed in order to be living (and that would only put it at two).

Secondly, there is no double standard present and you've made another incorrect assertion.
My moral relativist argument is basically showing that your argument concerning the morality of abortion holds no more strength behind it than a feather does. The bulk of my argument is based from definitive sources and definitions. My argument is strictly rooted in facts. The furthest I have strayed from this is even considering an inch of morality concerning the question of "killing" and the "wrong" of terminating the fetus. I've gone to attempt to prove that my argument eliminates those questions. The only way you even exposed me on the moral relativist note is when you attacked me personally on the idea of my referencing to universally accepted laws and not individualistic morals as they in fact are not definitive, changing from one person to another. Plus the supposed problems you've come up with are preposterous in their very nature and I made that clear in my last post. In essence I hardly see anything to substantiate what you just posted.

 

[Dre89]

So what? You haven't demonstrated why this difference matters. You simply assert that this supposed difference matters. I'd even argue there is no difference. If I didn't keep such a nice safe house, the man never would have come inside! It must be my fault for buying, maintaining and protecting such a nice property.

I'm arguing this supposed difference does not matter because if we were to look at any other area of life there would be no doubt on the matter. If someone was to ever enter my property, I will have the right to remove them. End of. Regardless of why and how they got there and regardless of what would happen should they be forcibly removed, this power will always be mine.

In that sense, a woman has a right to her own property too, or if you'd rather, her own body. It is her will whether something may enter it and if or when it should be removed. Not the guest's.

Your examples miss the point. The ticking bomb cannot take precedence over my rights. The money lending example just doesn't work.

The fact you think the burgular example is still relevant suggests you still don't get my point.

The mother is the reason why the baby is there, the baby didn't choose to go there because he saw the opportunity (like the burgular or pararsite).


And yes I have shown why how the SOD was incurred is in important because I've shown the implications of what you've said. That's why the money example works, because the person who gets robbed is innocent, yet they still owe the person who lent them the money. The person who lent the money is the baby, because they are now in a state of dependancy because of the person who got robbed. The person who got robbed is the mother, because she is responsible for the lender's dependancy on her. Aborting the baby is the same is not repaying the lender- you're assuming that just because she's innocent she doesn't have to repay the lender, or nurture the baby, yet she is responsbile for that person's loss of money or the baby's SOD. As a result of her not repaying the lender or continuing the pregnancy, the lender or baby, another innocent party, suffers, simply because the mother was the innocent, but whether she's innocent or not shouldn't affect the rights of another innocent third party (the baby/lender).

It makes no sense that a baby, who is in a SOD because of the mother, has a right to life because the sex was consensual, then to say that another baby, who of course has the mother to blame for its SOD, can have its rights violated and be killed simply because the mother was innocent. It's not fair to violate the right's of innocent third parties when you are resposnible for them being in that situation.

So the reason why I argue how the SOD is important is because of the implications of what you argue.

Being consistent with your logic would mean that if you innocently are violated of a right, because you are innocent, you are then allowed to go and violate the right of another innocent agent for your own convenience/interest.

 

[SuperBowser]

It makes no sense that a baby, who is in a SOD because of the mother, has a right to life because the sex was consensual, then to say that another baby, who of course has the mother to blame for its SOD, can have its rights violated and be killed simply because the mother was innocent. It's not fair to violate the right's of innocent third parties when you are resposnible for them being in that situation.

Nobody has said this. The fetus is always a guest in the mother's womb.

I understand your point completely. But I am telling you it doesn't address what I've said. A guest will always be a guest in another person's property. It doesn't matter why they are there or how they are there. The owner decides when that guest is welcome and when they no longer are. Just like other areas of life.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I think it's safe to say that suffering is a far more natural state than the extinction of humanity.

C'mon Dre, I think you're better than that. Abortion is legal in a number of countries, and yes their populations are ageing, and yes their birth rates are sometimes less than their death rates, but all this points to is a declining population. This however, is countered by the massive birth rates in undeveloped countries, and immigration.

Peak food is going to follow soon after peak oil, and from there on there will be less food production -- if our population is to keep growing during that stage, it's going to be very painful especially for the poor people.

The point is, the current level of population is unsustainable, and that we probably should bring it down using birth control before food runs short, as opposed to waiting for the crisis and watching people die of starvation.

There are two ways of bringing the earth's population back to reasonable levels, the nice way, or the mean way.

If you're worried about human extinction, then think about peak oil and peak food. These are much bigger problems than abortion.

 

[Xzax Kasrani]

I firmly believe that abortion should be legal for a few reasons and is good

1. ****- if you are forced to have sex which leads you to get pregnant, which isn't your fault and you aren't ready or don't want a kid, you shouldn't be forced

2. Choice- even though you choose to have sex, maybe you didn't want this outcome and if you young and not ready to have a child yet, a women has a choice to do what she wants with her body.

3. Responsibilities- if new borns are not wanted by the parents, you can't assure that child the best that there parents can provide

 

[Sieguest]

And yes I have shown why how the SOD was incurred is in important because I've shown the implications of what you've said. That's why the money example works, because the person who gets robbed is innocent, yet they still owe the person who lent them the money. The person who lent the money is the baby, because they are now in a state of dependancy because of the person who got robbed. The person who got robbed is the mother, because she is responsible for the lender's dependancy on her. Aborting the baby is the same is not repaying the lender- you're assuming that just because she's innocent she doesn't have to repay the lender, or nurture the baby, yet she is responsbile for that person's loss of money or the baby's SOD. As a result of her not repaying the lender or continuing the pregnancy, the lender or baby, another innocent party, suffers, simply because the mother was the innocent, but whether she's innocent or not shouldn't affect the rights of another innocent third party (the baby/lender).

I'm not sure I understand,
What exactly does a mother owe to the fetus? From what I see, she owes nothing to the fetus. The fetus has done nothing for her to obligate her to it.

It makes no sense that a baby, who is in a SOD because of the mother, has a right to life because the sex was consensual, then to say that another baby, who of course has the mother to blame for its SOD, can have its rights violated and be killed simply because the mother was innocent. It's not fair to violate the right's of innocent third parties when you are resposnible for them being in that situation.

Nothing has a true right to life. It's only the psuedoright established by the law and the fear of the ramifications of violating that law that's protecting the mother that is allowing that fetus to acquire life.

Being consistent with your logic would mean that if you innocently are violated of a right, because you are innocent, you are then allowed to go and violate the right of another innocent agent for your own convenience/interest.

It's not really violated if it never has it. One cannot be guaranteed life because life can end at any moment (or not even begin for some). No one is guaranteed any second past the present in existence so we cannot truly have a right to something of that nature.

 

[Dre89]

Ok I need to clear a few things up.

Bob- The extinction of humanity example was used to refute moral relativism. It was employed to show that there in fact certain goods we naturally move towards, for there are other practices which if universalised would be of great detriment to humanity. The fact that certain practices do lead to these unnatural states suggests there are natural goods and wrongs.

To the people arguing about a woman's right to her body- Yes it does make a difference who is responsible for how the invader gets there. For example, suppose I kidnap a baby and somehow have it surgically implanted in my body. Can I then say 'I have a right to protect my own body' and rightfully kill it in the interest of my own welfare and convenience? Obviously not, but abortion isn't any different. It's the mother, whether she's innocent or not, who put the baby in that position. It's different from a parasite, because the parasite was already in a SOD, and put itself in the body, the mother isn't responsible at all for its SOD, whereas it is for the baby. So I'd like to see you guys explain how the surgical implantation case is different from abortion. None of you even explained how my robber case was any different either.

Guest- Despite the fact I made this thread to dsicuss the mroality of abortion, you continously go back to the legal side of it. Even legally speaking, the allowing of abortion is a failure. The idea behind laws changing with societies is that there is some sort of gradual progress, that with each western period, the legal system improves positively. Well congratulations, in allowing abortion western civilisation has regressed back over 2000 years to Ancient Rome, the last time where sex outside of marriage and abortions were allowed in western civilisation.

 

[Sieguest]

Guest- Despite the fact I made this thread to dsicuss the mroality of abortion, you continously go back to the legal side of it. Even legally speaking, the allowing of abortion is a failure. The idea behind laws changing with societies is that there is some sort of gradual progress, that with each western period, the legal system improves positively. Well congratulations, in allowing abortion western civilisation has regressed back over 2000 years to Ancient Rome, the last time where sex outside of marriage and abortions were allowed in western civilisation.

In reference to the first part I've highlighted in red. Here's the cux I find to discussing most things morality based. If it isn't universally accepted as wrong or right. Then it's one person, or group's "right" being superimposed upon another group's "right," essentially an attack on one's culture. Take some wars for example. In some wars one side believes the other side is morally wrong in some way, and through defeating the other nation, they can try and superimpose their morals onto another nation, who may have completely opposite beliefs. One could ask "aren't laws just superimposed morals?" And that's true, the only difference being is that most laws are universally accepted among the group they are imposed on. Those laws that are not agreed upon are often called under question. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have entered this thread due to the above reasoning.

Anyway, in reference to the second part I've highlighted in red, as abortion hasn't been declared illegal in the United States, are you saying that the U.S.A. has regressed to like the ancient Romans? Despite evident advances technology and such? Are you saying that many of the world's nations are like that of the ancient Romans, despite those nations' advances in life?
Also, has abortion been declared illegal in Austrailia?

 

[SuperBowser]

To the people arguing about a woman's right to her body- Yes it does make a difference who is responsible for how the invader gets there. For example, suppose I kidnap a baby and somehow have it surgically implanted in my body. Can I then say 'I have a right to protect my own body' and rightfully kill it in the interest of my own welfare and convenience? Obviously not, but abortion isn't any different. It's the mother, whether she's innocent or not, who put the baby in that position. It's different from a parasite, because the parasite was already in a SOD, and put itself in the body, the mother isn't responsible at all for its SOD, whereas it is for the baby. So I'd like to see you guys explain how the surgical implantation case is different from abortion. None of you even explained how my robber case was any different either.

Surgical implantation is different because you've just kidnapped a human being. That baby was physically independent before you touched it.

I don't understand your line of logic for why a human is responsible for the SOD of a fetus, but not a parasite. Maybe you can explain it better to me. How is being infected by a random pathogen any less (or more) a person's fault than being *****?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Ok I need to clear a few things up.

Bob- The extinction of humanity example was used to refute moral relativism. It was employed to show that there in fact certain goods we naturally move towards, for there are other practices which if universalised would be of great detriment to humanity. The fact that certain practices do lead to these unnatural states suggests there are natural goods and wrongs.

So, you're saying that if everyone did abortion, it'd be great detriment to humanity? Okay... Yeah... Same applies with killing people and suicide I suppose.... Both of which, in my opinion are morally justified, in some circumstances.

If everyone sacrificed their lives to try to save others, everyone would die, and that's an unnatural state, therefore it's a bad practice?

I don't really understand your point, in short, I'm sure it's probably more intelligent than that, but I can't quiet get what you're saying, and at the moment, it seems rather wrong.

 

[Dre89]

Guest- I understand what you're saying, but this isn't about opposing one cultural view from another. Cultures are horrible sources of morality, I personally believe part of the path to attaining 'wisdom' is to not have your ideas affected by your culture. You only have to look at the Middle East and Africa to see that cultural relativism is wrong, because in those regions they mutilate young girls genitals against their will because they believe they don't have a right to enjoy sex, leading to psychological and health issues. Something like that is clearly a violation of human nature. All I'm saying is that there are certain things which are natural goods. That's what pain is for, it is to alert you that something wrong is occuring.

The problem is relativism fails because apart from allowing clearly unnatural things such as forced female genital mutilation, you have to assert that there are no goods, yet if you beleive we shouldn't kill etc. then you are assuming that preserving social order is a good, contradicting the theory. If you allow killing etc. then you have no problem with allowing for the extinction of humanity, but that is clearly an unnatural state, because it would defeat the purpose of being living beings, which obviously are naturally supposed to live, otherwise they wouldn't be be living.

And with regards to the USA, yes there have been advancements, but not necessarily morally or perhaps even legally, that's all I'm getting at. By saying that 18th century ideals are outdated, you are assuming that there is a progression in civilisation (despite the fact you would have no objective standard to measure this against), yet the progression is clearly non-existent in our time because morally and legally we've regressed back over 2000 years.

SuperBowser- Do you notice though that the kidnapped baby's SOD only begins once in the body? What I'm saying is that in abortion, the baby's SOD only begins, or only exists for that matter, once the mother has had sex, innocent or consensual. It is an event in the mother's life which causes the baby's SOD. This is how it is different from a parasite, because it would have had an SOD regardless of whether the mother existed or not. In abortion, the only reason why the baby has an SOD is because the mother exists, if you remove the mother you remove the SOD, proving she is responsible for it and she incurred it for the baby.

Bob- You're right about the sacrificing lives part, but then again I wouldn't argue that we are naturally inclined to sacrifice our lives as soon as we are physically possible to do so. We naturally have an inclination to sacrifice, but not instantly. So you may say that the universalisation theory is flawed, because it forbids a good practice such as sacrifice, but in truth all it forbids is sacrifice as a necessity as soon as physically possible, it's actually saying that to do that is not natural, which it isn't.

My point is just to show that there are some practices which are just naturally bad. i agree that killing is morally permissable in certain circumstances, but that is only the case when it is a result of the Double Effect principle, and universalising killing only through the Double Effect principle is practical and doesn't lead to an unnatural state. For those of you concerned (or if you know what I'm talking about) I'm nto a Kantian, there's a difference between my ethics, I'm just saying that in case someone who knows philosophy mislabels me.

 

[SuperBowser]

SuperBowser- Do you notice though that the kidnapped baby's SOD only begins once in the body? What I'm saying is that in abortion, the baby's SOD only begins, or only exists for that matter, once the mother has had sex, innocent or consensual. It is an event in the mother's life which causes the baby's SOD. This is how it is different from a parasite, because it would have had an SOD regardless of whether the mother existed or not. In abortion, the only reason why the baby has an SOD is because the mother exists, if you remove the mother you remove the SOD, proving she is responsible for it and she incurred it for the baby.

Your previous example is a little bizarre. Aside from the fact that you violated the child's rights in the first place to put it into a ''state of dependency'', one can quite easily remove the child from that ''state of dependency'' and leave them to live outside again. A child is quite capable of being physiologically independent, so you don't need to ''kill it''. There isn't a problem here.


This is turning into a semantics game, which I'm not particularly fond of. I don't know the definition of parasite you are using. Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.

I don't follow your logic on this so correct me if my summary is wrong:

You are saying a fetus is produced by an event.
You are saying a fetus can only exist within the mother, following this event.
You are saying that because of this criterion the mother is responsible for it.
This is different to a parasite because a parasite can exist outside a host...?

I am struggling to get your point here because a fetus quite easily meets the definition of a parasite (at least in nature of existence). Ask any doctor - they sometimes even describe a fetus as a parasite to their patients!

However, if we pretended that there is a (semantic) difference between a parasite and a fetus, it begs the question; is that really your justifcation for being opposed to abortion?

 

[Sieguest]

Guest- I understand what you're saying, but this isn't about opposing one cultural view from another. Cultures are horrible sources of morality, I personally believe part of the path to attaining 'wisdom' is to not have your ideas affected by your culture. You only have to look at the Middle East and Africa to see that cultural relativism is wrong, because in those regions they mutilate young girls genitals against their will because they believe they don't have a right to enjoy sex, leading to psychological and health issues. Something like that is clearly a violation of human nature. All I'm saying is that there are certain things which are natural goods. That's what pain is for, it is to alert you that something wrong is occuring.

Actually all of us are shaped by our culture. To have no culture is to be without parents who instilled what is "right" and "wrong" into you. To have no routine things that you always do. The base of what we know as "right" and what is "wrong" is derived from our culture.
Also, who says that female genital mutilation is wrong? Your moral views say that. But their moral views do not say that. A member of an African tribe could reciprocate what you have just posted and just switch where you placed their morals and your morals. Even what you and I consider naturally good, can be completely different to someone grown up with a different lifestyle. To make my point, let me ask you this:
If you had been raised in an African tribe, would you think the same way about female genital mutilation?
If you were an White American who grew up in the South when slavery was considered "normal" would you think that slavery was wrong?
From an objective point, most would say yes. But most don't think that in either situation, as they grow up, what they are exposed to daily is what becomes normal to them. The things their elders say and instill in the impressionable mind of a child that we can't fathom now, in most cases, if you were raised in that type of setting, you wouldn't fathom posting what you've posted now.
This is the base of the premise of how a moral argument becomes circular.

The problem is relativism fails because apart from allowing clearly unnatural things such as forced female genital mutilation, you have to assert that there are no goods, yet if you beleive we shouldn't kill etc. then you are assuming that preserving social order is a good, contradicting the theory. If you allow killing etc. then you have no problem with allowing for the extinction of humanity, but that is clearly an unnatural state, because it would defeat the purpose of being living beings, which obviously are naturally supposed to live, otherwise they wouldn't be be living.

Again, what one considers "unnatural" in the sense you use it, may not be "unnatural" to another. The way I think, something is only "bad" if it is universally accepted by all as being "bad." - such as killing. Other than that, our morals are relatively different, and what we've grown up believing may completely opposite from what another has grown up believing. Both are justified in their own respect.

And with regards to the USA, yes there have been advancements, but not necessarily morally or perhaps even legally, that's all I'm getting at. By saying that 18th century ideals are outdated, you are assuming that there is a progression in civilisation (despite the fact you would have no objective standard to measure this against), yet the progression is clearly non-existent in our time because morally and legally we've regressed back over 2000 years.

Not just 18th century ideals. But 18th century way of life is in the past. Better technology, more efficient transport, and ways to live longer. As to the moral part, you may say we've morally regressed because abortion is allowed, another may say we will morally regress if we don't allow abortion. And both of you could be justifed from your own moral backgrounds.

As it seems though, this discussion of the affiliation of morality seems off topic, and probably something deserving of its own thread. The only way I could tie this to the abortion argument, is that abortion is a moral choice from how I see it. And a moral argument being justifiable by the morals of the individual makes something of this nature destined to get stuck in a circle of defining "right" and "wrong."

This document concerning the instability of moral arguments succinctly ties up what I've just posted.

 

[Dre89]

You are saying a fetus is produced by an event.
You are saying a fetus can only exist within the mother, following this event.
You are saying that because of this criterion the mother is responsible for it.
This is different to a parasite because a parasite can exist outside a host...?

I am struggling to get your point here because a fetus quite easily meets the definition of a parasite (at least in nature of existence). Ask any doctor - they sometimes even describe a fetus as a parasite to their patients!

However, if we pretended that there is a (semantic) difference between a parasite and a fetus, it begs the question; is that really your justifcation for being opposed to abortion?

Your summary is slightly off, but it misses the most crucial point.

What obligates the mother to the baby is not that only she can save the baby, for that would be no different for the parasite.

The difference between the parasite and the baby is the event which caused the SOD. The event which caused the parasite's SOd has nothing to do iwth the mother at all. This why you're not obliged to sacrifice greatly to help a poor man, because you were not responsible for the event which caused his SOD.

The difference with abortion is that is that the event which caused the baby's SOD was caused by the mother. This is why if I cause an event which puts you in an SOD, regardless of whether I'm innocent or not, I'm obliged to put your wellbeing before mine.

This is what I was getting at with the robber example. By getting robbed, the person who borrowed the money has put the lender in a SOD.

So no it's not the fact that only the mother can presevre the baby that obligates her, it's that she is responsible, she is at fault for the baby's SOD.

I hope I've made myself clear.

 

[Dre89]

Actually all of us are shaped by our culture. To have no culture is to be without parents who instilled what is "right" and "wrong" into you. To have no routine things that you always do. The base of what we know as "right" and what is "wrong" is derived from our culture.
Also, who says that female genital mutilation is wrong? Your moral views say that. But their moral views do not say that. A member of an African tribe could reciprocate what you have just posted and just switch where you placed their morals and your morals. Even what you and I consider naturally good, can be completely different to someone grown up with a different lifestyle. To make my point, let me ask you this:
If you had been raised in an African tribe, would you think the same way about female genital mutilation?
If you were an White American who grew up in the South when slavery was considered "normal" would you think that slavery was wrong?
From an objective point, most would say yes. But most don't think that in either situation, as they grow up, what they are exposed to daily is what becomes normal to them. The things their elders say and instill in the impressionable mind of a child that we can't fathom now, in most cases, if you were raised in that type of setting, you wouldn't fathom posting what you've posted now.
This is the base of the premise of how a moral argument becomes circular.[/COLOR]


Again, what one considers "unnatural" in the sense you use it, may not be "unnatural" to another. The way I think, something is only "bad" if it is universally accepted by all as being "bad." - such as killing. Other than that, our morals are relatively different, and what we've grown up believing may completely opposite from what another has grown up believing. Both are justified in their own respect.

Firstly, my moral ideas have very little to do with my upbringing or my culture for that matter.

Secondly, your cultural relativism argument fails due to your lack of knowledge with regards to the origins of several moral theories (I don't mean that offensively, I couldn't think of a ncier way way to put it).

You straw-man moral theories by suggesting they all come from cultural upbringing or from a philosopher's appreciation of his or her own logic. In these instances, you are justified in saying 'that's just your beliefs' bla bla bla...

But several moral theories don't appeal to just one man's logic, rather they appeal to more universal authorities.

Take world religions for example. In the moral teahcings of Abrahamic religions, you have to understand the distinction between natural morals and theological morals.

For example, in Catholicism, theological morals are things such as going to Church every Sunday, and natural morals are things such as abstanation from sex outside of marriage, anti-abortion etc. These are natural morals they are derived from what is natural, and they feel abandoning these morals is to violate human nature.

The interesting thing is is that whilst the theological morals differ between religions, the natural morals are in fact very similar. In fact, several people such as myself, of vastly different regions and epriod, have concluded upon the same set of natural morals without even being religious at all.

For theological morals, the theist appeals to Scripture, for natural morals, the theist appeals to Scripture again, but Scripture appeals to nature.

What this shows is that people of vastly different cultures and beliefs have concluded the same values through appealing to a universal authority (nature), rather than just appealing to their own logic.

All this shows is that it is likely there are natural good and wrongs.


[

COLOR="#48d1cc"]Not just 18th century ideals. But 18th century way of life is in the past. Better technology, more efficient transport, and ways to live longer. As to the moral part, you may say we've morally regressed because abortion is allowed, another may say we will morally regress if we don't allow abortion. And both of you could be justifed from your own moral backgrounds.

Again, mine isn't a moral background, it is an appeal to an evident and universal authority (nature). the second part of your statement is incorrect, because it is only the relativists and the seculars who believe in moral progression within civilisation. if you believe in moral progression rather than objective moral ideals, the forbidding of abortion cannot be a regression, because it would be a progression from endorsing it. You can't argue that it is a regress, for there is no objective standard to measure it against. You can say however that the legalisation of abortion in our time is a regress, because we have reverted to a practice we had previously progressed from.

As it seems though, this discussion of the affiliation of morality seems off topic, and probably something deserving of its own thread. The only way I could tie this to the abortion argument, is that abortion is a moral choice from how I see it. And a moral argument being justifiable by the morals of the individual makes something of this nature destined to get stuck in a circle of defining "right" and "wrong."

If morality is subjective then there is no right and wrong. In short, relativism ignores the fact that as humans we are naturally inclined towards certain practices, or that certain states of being are wrong or unnatural, despite the fact that the whole point of mental and physical pain is to alert us to these very states.

 

[Sieguest]

Firstly, my moral ideas have very little to do with my upbringing or my culture for that matter.

Not trying to be too personal here, but for the sake of my point, then where do your moral ideas come from?

Secondly, your cultural relativism argument fails due to your lack of knowledge with regards to the origins of several moral theories (I don't mean that offensively, I couldn't think of a ncier way way to put it).

No offense taken, but if that's the case, then would you show me where several moral theories come from?

You straw-man moral theories by suggesting they all come from cultural upbringing or from a philosopher's appreciation of his or her own logic. In these instances, you are justified in saying 'that's just your beliefs' bla bla bla...

Unless you have proof saying otherwise, I'm inclined to believe what I just said, my proof being in history and the article I posted in my previous post. From what you're saying, it seems you could just pull a moral ideal out of thin air without any outside influence which I find very hard to believe.

But several moral theories don't appeal to just one man's logic, rather they appeal to more universal authorities.

Take world religions for example. In the moral teahcings of Abrahamic religions, you have to understand the distinction between natural morals and theological morals.

For example, in Catholicism, theological morals are things such as going to Church every Sunday, and natural morals are things such as abstanation from sex outside of marriage, anti-abortion etc. These are natural morals they are derived from what is natural, and they feel abandoning these morals is to violate human nature.

The interesting thing is is that whilst the theological morals differ between religions, the natural morals are in fact very similar. In fact, several people such as myself, of vastly different regions and epriod, have concluded upon the same set of natural morals without even being religious at all.

For theological morals, the theist appeals to Scripture, for natural morals, the theist appeals to Scripture again, but Scripture appeals to nature.

This may be true, but who determines that Catholic morals are right? Or that the natural laws they put forward are true? The individual who chooses to believe in it. Also know that religion is part of one's culture. You could mention religions from across the globe and natural philosophies given from various men. But how do they get to the place where they think like that? What is their base? It's culture.

What this shows is that people of vastly different cultures and beliefs have concluded the same values through appealing to a universal authority (nature), rather than just appealing to their own logic.
All this shows is that it is likely there are natural good and wrongs.

From this I take it you did not read the article I posted in my previous post.

Appeal to Nature

This fallacy, as illustrated by the two examples below, occurs whenever it is argued that something is moral because it is natural, or that something is immoral because it is unnatural.

1. Human beings are by nature meat eaters. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with eating pork chops and hamburgers.

2. Homosexuality is wrong because it is a perversion of nature.

These arguments are fallacious because there is no conceptual connection between what is natural and what is moral. (The first category has to do with how things are, whereas the second has to do with how things ought to be.) For example, it is natural for women to experience pain and suffering during childbirth. Does this mean that such suffering is good, or that it is wrong for women to have some form of pain-relief during childbirth? It is unnatural for human beings to fly. Does this mean that it is morally wrong for people to travel by airplane?

And vastly different? I beg to differ. This chart shows the relation of religions. Locate the Abrahamic religions and see that those religions are not too different.

Again, mine isn't a moral background, it is an appeal to an evident and universal authority (nature). the second part of your statement is incorrect, because it is only the relativists and the seculars who believe in moral progression within civilisation. if you believe in moral progression rather than objective moral ideals, the forbidding of abortion cannot be a regression, because it would be a progression from endorsing it. You can't argue that it is a regress, for there is no objective standard to measure it against. You can say however that the legalisation of abortion in our time is a regress, because we have reverted to a practice we had previously progressed from.

Reading the article would tell why an appeal to nature is weak. Nature exists, sure. But who says the laws you put forth are actually true. I could say the total opposite is a natural law. Is there any way to disprove it? You could say just look at nature and see it's clearly unnatural. But that statement can be applied to anything one assumes to a natural law. There's nothing definitive about nature to back up any natural law.

"What about the existence of humans? The extinction of the human rrace would clearly be unnatural and that's what abortion promotes."

One person's law derived from nature.

"We are just another species on this planet, and just like other animals go extinct, we too shall go extinct."

Another person's law derived from nature.
(Disclaimer: These "people" are completely imagined so one couldn't ask for a source showing who said that.)

Both can refute each other with their own natural law. And in a sense both are correct, but they're contradictory? This means one thing. The idea of a definite natural law is non-existent. Therefore to assume there is one is false, it's on an individual basis of choice.

If morality is subjective then there is no right and wrong. In short, relativism ignores the fact that as humans we are naturally inclined towards certain practices, or that certain states of being are wrong or unnatural, despite the fact that the whole point of mental and physical pain is to alert us to these very states.

Once more: Who made that definite?

"Mental and Physical pain is to alert us to when we are doing wrong."

or

"Mental and Physical pain is a natural process of life independent of any moral cause."

Two different "laws." Completely contradictory to each other. A definite natural law is impossible.

Your logic also associates pain with being wrong in all cases. So whenever I'm thinking while doing homework and I get a small headache. Am I doing something wrong? If I'm taking a jog and my leg randomly cramps, am I doing something wrong.
If I'm minding my own business and someone trips me. Am I doing something wrong?

With relation to abortion, there is also this from the same article I posted in my previous post:

The problem with the second argument is not whether the rule against killing an innocent person holds without exception, but whether it can be correctly applied to the abortion issue. Is a human fetus a human being? Or is it merely a potential human being?

Many philosophers have challenged the claim that human life begins at conception. Henry Morgentaler presents one such challenge:
At the moment of conception the sperm and the ovum unite, creating one cell. To proclaim that this one cell is already a full human being and should be treated as such is so patently absurd that it is almost difficult to refute. It is as if someone claimed that one brick is already a house and should be treated with the same
respect a full house deserves. Even if you have a hundred bricks, or two hundred bricks, it is not yet a house.
For it to be a house it needs walls, plumbing, electricity, and a functional organization.

The same is true for a developing embryo. In order for it to be a human being it needs an internal organization, organs, and especially a human brain to be considered fully human. This entity is the result of sexual intercourse, where procreation is often not the goal, and whether it is called a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus, it does not have all the attributes of a human being and thus cannot properly be considered one.

 

[Dre89]

Not trying to be too personal here, but for the sake of my point, then where do your moral ideas come from?

My moral ideas are completely different from my parents, and different from most other students I study with. I deliberately make an effort not to be influenced by my culture.

No offense taken, but if that's the case, then would you show me where several moral theories come from?

As I showed before, instead of appealing to one's logic, people can appeal to universal authorities such as Scripture and nature.

Unless you have proof saying otherwise, I'm inclined to believe what I just said, my proof being in history and the article I posted in my previous post. From what you're saying, it seems you could just pull a moral ideal out of thin air without any outside influence which I find very hard to believe.

The outside influence is the world itself, not the immediate culture surrounding you. The fact that people, religious or not, have concluded the same natural laws regardless of region or period shows that certain moral theories are beyond cultural influence.

This may be true, but who determines that Catholic morals are right? Or that the natural laws they put forward are true? The individual who chooses to believe in it. Also know that religion is part of one's culture. You could mention religions from across the globe and natural philosophies given from various men. But how do they get to the place where they think like that? What is their base? It's culture.

The whole point is that their supposed 'bases' were all different, yet they concluded the same thing by looking at something universal rather than their own logic. On the same token, there is nothing that suggests that relativism is right. Relativism cotnradicts itself because the objective truth is that there is no objective truth. You endorse people developing their own moral ideas, but you're telling me the idea of an objective mroality existing is objectively wrong, which is a contradiction in itself.

From this I take it you did not read the article I posted in my previous post.

Yeah I forgot sorry lol.

And vastly different? I beg to differ. This chart shows the relation of religions. Locate the Abrahamic religions and see that those religions are not too different.

I didn't see what relevance this had. This made no mention of the respective natural law theories, it extends beyond Abrahamic religions anyway.

Reading the article would tell why an appeal to nature is weak. Nature exists, sure. But who says the laws you put forth are actually true. I could say the total opposite is a natural law. Is there any way to disprove it? You could say just look at nature and see it's clearly unnatural. But that statement can be applied to anything one assumes to a natural law. There's nothing definitive about nature to back up any natural law.

Yes there is, because certain practices if universalised would lead to the extinction of humanity. Being living beings, clearly our purpose is to live, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of living.

Yes species go extinct, but one of the differences between animals and humans is that animals don't will their own extinction. Animals function purely as means to ends, that's why they function in ecosystems, and don't have the capacity to escape those ecosystems. Humans are the only creatures on Earth who aren't governed by ecosystems, cannot live without interfering with other established ecosystems, can destroy the Earth, and can will their own extinction.

Extinction occurs because of either a lack of resources, or being outcompeted or killed off by another species, it is not willed. By universalising acts which would result in thee xtinction of humanity, humans are willing their own extinction, an extinction which is certainly within their power to prevent. If willed and preventable extinction was natural, there would be no point being living beings, because we could have wiped ourselves out straight away. It's just completely absurd to argue that the non-appreciation of life is not an unnatural state.

"What about the existence of humans? The extinction of the human rrace would clearly be unnatural and that's what abortion promotes."

One person's law derived from nature.

"We are just another species on this planet, and just like other animals go extinct, we too shall go extinct."

See above.

Another person's law derived from nature.
(Disclaimer: These "people" are completely imagined so one couldn't ask for a source showing who said that.)

That's an epistemological issue. The fact we are even debating about abortion suggests we are going off the assumption that our perception of the external world correlates relatively accurately with reality.

Both can refute each other with their own natural law. And in a sense both are correct, but they're contradictory? This means one thing. The idea of a definite natural law is non-existent. Therefore to assume there is one is false, it's on an individual basis of choice.

No, it means that someone has flawed thinking. Logic is ineliminable from human thought, we are designed to use it, and it is designed to establish objective truths. By proposing relativism, you are using logic. The problem is, relativism suggests that human logic is pointless, because when you say 'that's just one opinion against another' and making the statements equal, you are ignoring the logical validity of the statements.

The whole point of natural law is to identify what humans are naturally inclined to do. How could you possibly deny that procreation is not a natural good? You can't. If it wasn't a natural good, we wouldn't be inclined to participate in the sexual act.

If things were truly relative, even if procreation existed, we wouldn't be inclined to it at all. In fact, we wouldn't be inclined to anything at all, or we would be equally inclined to absolutely every single possible action a human can do. The favouritisism of inclination towards certain actions suggests there are certain goods we move towards.

Once more: Who made that definite?

"Mental and Physical pain is to alert us to when we are doing wrong."

or

"Mental and Physical pain is a natural process of life independent of any moral cause."

Two different "laws." Completely contradictory to each other. A definite natural law is impossible.

Your logic also associates pain with being wrong in all cases. So whenever I'm thinking while doing homework and I get a small headache. Am I doing something wrong? If I'm taking a jog and my leg randomly cramps, am I doing something wrong.
If I'm minding my own business and someone trips me. Am I doing something wrong?

No, my logic says that pain is good. Pain is an undesirable sensation, the whole point is to alert you that something undesirable is occuring.

I don't have a problem removing pain, as long as it doesn't corrupt the natural process. Take footwear for example, it's designed to remove pain from walking. The point of walking is to get from one point to another, the pain is not the goal, it's just a side-effect. In this instance removing the pain is not wrong, because it doesn't alter the natural goal.

Contraception however is different. The natural process of sex is sexual stimulation entices the couple into the act, resulting in procreation. Cotnraception attempts to remove the procreation, and makes the sexual stimulation or gratification the end or goal. That is a corruption, because you are using an artificial means to corrupt a natural process. If casual sex was supposed to happen, we would be naturally able to do it without any artifical agents.

With relation to abortion, there is also this from the same article I posted in my previous post:

The brick analogy is flawed because a house is comprised of multiple parts, none of which are naturally predetermined to develop into a mature form, in this case a fully developed house.

A zygote is a unified entity which is naturally predtermined to develop into a mature human being.

The definition in that article of when it is fully human is just merely one another opinion. Nothing about that opinion makes it any more valid than any other PA argument opinion, I could easily say it is only human once it achieves personhood, which is at about 7.

This is the problem when you say a fetus requires certain traits to be fully human. Personhood is a trait that a mature human has but a baby doesn't, yet the article suggests you need X traits but not personhood.

The article is inconsistent because it says a fetus isn't fully human because it lacks X traits, yet says a baby at X weeks is fully human, despite the fact it lacks personhood. Why should a fetus get punished for not being fully human, yet a baby can get away with it?

If that article were right, we would have some sort of natural inclination towards it, yet we don't. If abortion were natural, we could do it without any artifical agent, or we would be able to consciously control when we can ejacultae to prevent procreation.

If there are no natural goods, what's the point of us having certain inclinations then? Why do we only have certain inclinations, if there was no good, we wouldn't be designed to move towards certain things. We would either have no inclinations or be equally inclined to every single posslbe action we're physically capable of.

What even then, was the point of having logic as one of our foundational principles? The whole point of logic is to deduce truth. Considering that truth is objective, why is our thought and process designed to achieve an objective good, if there are no objective goods? Logic isn't taught either. The earliest forms of logic are found babies or young kids when they apply inductive logic to influence their actions, and also to accept human testimony.

I've never taken relativism seriously, which is why I'm so eager to understand what your defence of it is, after all, the whole point of me coming to this board was to learn.

 

[Sieguest]

My moral ideas are completely different from my parents, and different from most other students I study with. I deliberately make an effort not to be influenced by my culture.

Bingo. By deliberately finding ways to not be influenced by your culture is how you in fact are influenced by your culture.

As I showed before, instead of appealing to one's logic, people can appeal to universal authorities such as Scripture and nature.

Can't call it universal if not everyone believes in it as you do. As you see here...
Well, you could call the existence of nature universal, but not the laws pertaining to it.

The outside influence is the world itself, not the immediate culture surrounding you. The fact that people, religious or not, have concluded the same natural laws regardless of region or period shows that certain moral theories are beyond cultural influence.

Ah, but you are influenced by your culture. You must believe your culture is flawed or narrowed in some way so you look for something deliberately outside it. In this case, your culture has negatively influenced you, but nonetheless, you were influenced by your culture.

The whole point is that their supposed 'bases' were all different, yet they concluded the same thing by looking at something universal rather than their own logic. On the same token, there is nothing that suggests that relativism is right. Relativism cotnradicts itself because the objective truth is that there is no objective truth. You endorse people developing their own moral ideas, but you're telling me the idea of an objective mroality existing is objectively wrong, which is a contradiction in itself.

In reference to what I highlighted in red This can go both ways. Do you disregard the fact that others who believe the same as what I'm saying, also come from different cultural bases?

I've never taken relativism seriously, which is why I'm so eager to understand what your defence of it is, after all, the whole point of me coming to this board was to learn.

As to the moral relativist part, you are correct for the most part except the part in Sea Green. Also since the opportunity has arisen I'll address the last part of your post.

You seem to follow on rigid definition of Moral Relativism but take heed that the definition is not as strict as you say.
Moral relativism doesn't define an objective "right" or an objective "wrong" because it believes that you can't define it due to the vast majority of "rights" and "wrongs" found in the world. Because of this, the statement you've made in green is false by definition. Moral Relativism holds that we can only define what is "right" or "wrong" in the singularity such as within an individual's beliefs. At this point you're thinking. "I've all ready shown that people from different cultural bases have developed a common thought to a universal entity." Okay, but that only defines "right" and "wrong" for that group of people, as such your group is still a singularity in which you can only define "right" or "wrong" within that singularity. That also means that your entity isn't universal. The existence of nature may be, but the laws that you attribute to nature are not.
The fact we are having this moral debate right now attests to this fact.

I didn't see what relevance this had. This made no mention of the respective natural law theories, it extends beyond Abrahamic religions anyway.

Your post only referenced the Abrahamic religions. And you used the term that they were "vastly different" I was pointing out the falsity in that statement by showing that they are closely related and how therefore, it's understandable how they are so similar.

Yes there is, because certain practices if universalised would lead to the extinction of humanity. Being living beings, clearly our purpose is to live, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of living.

What is the purpose of living? What is the meaning of life? That's something I've yet to find an answer to. This post here leads me to believe that you know why we are on this planet.
Just like the practice of hunting makes so many animals go extinct. We are just another species. We can will the extinction of other species. What makes this species so different? Just because we have more traits, a greater survival capacity? We're still just another species on this planet.
On the idea of reciprocation. Universalizing certain practices also would lead to extinction of humanity, in a different way. So I don't sound like I'm being an unnecessary jerk, I'll elaborate: Overpopulation and the exhaustion of the world's resources. If abortion isn't allowed then this will happen. Although following your supposed "natural" way of life, it leads to your supposed "unnatural" end. That's what seems contradictory to me.

Yes species go extinct, but one of the differences between animals and humans is that animals don't will their own extinction. Animals function purely as means to ends, that's why they function in ecosystems, and don't have the capacity to escape those ecosystems. Humans are the only creatures on Earth who aren't governed by ecosystems, cannot live without interfering with other established ecosystems, can destroy the Earth, and can will their own extinction.

I don't object to anything here. Except the part where you say we aren't governed by our ecosystems. Lets take someone from the coast and place them in the middle of the Sahara Desert. What could they possibly do?

Extinction occurs because of either a lack of resources, or being outcompeted or killed off by another species, it is not willed. By universalising acts which would result in thee xtinction of humanity, humans are willing their own extinction, an extinction which is certainly within their power to prevent. If willed and preventable extinction was natural, there would be no point being living beings, because we could have wiped ourselves out straight away. It's just completely absurd to argue that the non-appreciation of life is not an unnatural state.

And guess how our resources become depleted.
By always doing things the "natural" way as you call it. And you're right, it isn't willed. Because somewhere along the line we decided that contraceptives and abortion were wrong and took away the right to choose.

With that in mind and using your logic, the idea that everyone who gets pregnant must have their baby because it would be "unnatural" not to is actually "unnatural" in itself due to it leading to overpopulation, the depletion of resources, and our eventual extinction which you have declared to be "unnatural."

That's an epistemological issue. The fact we are even debating about abortion suggests we are going off the assumption that our perception of the external world correlates relatively accurately with reality.

I guess that neither of our perceptions follow what the world really is then.

No, it means that someone has flawed thinking. Logic is ineliminable from human thought, we are designed to use it, and it is designed to establish objective truths. By proposing relativism, you are using logic. The problem is, relativism suggests that human logic is pointless, because when you say 'that's just one opinion against another' and making the statements equal, you are ignoring the logical validity of the statements.

Now how do you determine who that "someone" is?

The part I've highlighted in red is false. Logic is used to find objective truths. Objective truths being facts, not the subjective beliefs of the individual or groups of individuals.
There is no logical way to support a moral that can't be reciprocated by someone who believes opposite of you to support their own. Logic is based on facts. Morals are not, they're completely subjective.

The whole point of natural law is to identify what humans are naturally inclined to do. How could you possibly deny that procreation is not a natural good? You can't. If it wasn't a natural good, we wouldn't be inclined to participate in the sexual act.

Whenever procreation leads to my extinction is when.
Tell me, what are your thoughts on teenage pregnancy? It may seem unrelated to the topic right now. But I'll show you as this progresses.

If things were truly relative, even if procreation existed, we wouldn't be inclined to it at all. In fact, we wouldn't be inclined to anything at all, or we would be equally inclined to absolutely every single possible action a human can do. The favouritisism of inclination towards certain actions suggests there are certain goods we move towards.

You are confusing what is "moral" and what is "natural" now. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is good.

For example: It's not natural for humans to fly. But we fly using airplanes. Does this mean that airplanes are bad? That is basically what your logic entails by combining what is natural and what is moral.

No, my logic says that pain is good. Pain is an undesirable sensation, the whole point is to alert you that something undesirable is occuring.

What is undesirable and what is morally wrong are not the same thing.

Getting a headache from thinking critically may be undesirable. But is it morally wrong?

Getting tripped by someone else is undesirable. But since the you're the one feeling pain, does that mean that you were doing something morally wrong?

Your last post said something completely different than this one. "Undesirable" and "Wrong" and two different words with seperate meanings.

I don't have a problem removing pain, as long as it doesn't corrupt the natural process. Take footwear for example, it's designed to remove pain from walking. The point of walking is to get from one point to another, the pain is not the goal, it's just a side-effect. In this instance removing the pain is not wrong, because it doesn't alter the natural goal.

So are airplanes a corruption of the natural process of traveling? Humans were not made to fly naturally. And again, if it is. Is it wrong? If so how?
I reiterate that what is natural and what is wrong are not one in the same.

Contraception however is different. The natural process of sex is sexual stimulation entices the couple into the act, resulting in procreation. Cotnraception attempts to remove the procreation, and makes the sexual stimulation or gratification the end or goal. That is a corruption, because you are using an artificial means to corrupt a natural process. If casual sex was supposed to happen, we would be naturally able to do it without any artifical agents.

Refer to the airplane example.

The brick analogy is flawed because a house is comprised of multiple parts, none of which are naturally predetermined to develop into a mature form, in this case a fully developed house.

A zygote is a unified entity which is naturally predtermined to develop into a mature human being.

A human being is comprised of multiple parts as well. And none of them are predetermined to become a human being due to the fact that none of those parts are guaranteed more than the present in their existence.

The definition in that article of when it is fully human is just merely one another opinion. Nothing about that opinion makes it any more valid than any other PA argument opinion, I could easily say it is only human once it achieves personhood, which is at about 7.

Just as how I can say your definition of what natural law truly entails is just another opinion. Nothing about your opinion make it any more valid than my saying that female genital mutilation is completely justified because my god says so.

This is the problem when you say a fetus requires certain traits to be fully human. Personhood is a trait that a mature human has but a baby doesn't, yet the article suggests you need X traits but not personhood.

Then it's pretty obvious that something doesn't require "personhood" to be human.

The article is inconsistent because it says a fetus isn't fully human because it lacks X traits, yet says a baby at X weeks is fully human, despite the fact it lacks personhood. Why should a fetus get punished for not being fully human, yet a baby can get away with it?

Your assuming that personhood is part of X traits. If it is not a part of X traits to be considered human. Then it doesn't need it. If a baby exhibits X traits to be human while a fetus exhibits X-1 traits. Then the fetus cannot be human by that standard.
Also, personhood is being able to exhibit the traits of being a person notably showing individuality. Basically adept at displaying emotion and cognitive response. A baby can display cognitive response e.g. responding to it's mother's voice or crying whenver it's mother is away. And emotion through laughing at certain stimuli, and crying at times when mother goes away, or when left alone. Baby's also have their own temperaments. Some can tolerate being solitary longer than others. As it seems, a baby has individuality, and through that, personhood.

If that article were right, we would have some sort of natural inclination towards it, yet we don't. If abortion were natural, we could do it without any artifical agent, or we would be able to consciously control when we can ejacultae to prevent procreation.

So you're saying I didn't have a natural inclination towards the article even though I found it and posted it here? And through that I'm wrong. Then get this, I wasn't naturally inclined to your natural laws as you've witnessed, so they must not be right. That's basically what your logic is saying. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Someone gets their leg cut off. Is it now not natural for them to be able to move around? Is that person doing normal activities such as walking not natural since they need a prosthetic leg?

By your logic here: We can move without shoes, shoes are an artificial agent, so wearing shoes must not be natural. Yet you said earlier that shoes are not "wrong".
Thrice proving my point that what is natural and what is moral are not one in the same.

If there are no natural goods, what's the point of us having certain inclinations then? Why do we only have certain inclinations, if there was no good, we wouldn't be designed to move towards certain things. We would either have no inclinations or be equally inclined to every single posslbe action we're physically capable of.

Then how come I wasn't inclined to your natural laws if they are supposedly "natural goods"

What even then, was the point of having logic as one of our foundational principles? The whole point of logic is to deduce truth. Considering that truth is objective, why is our thought and process designed to achieve an objective good, if there are no objective goods? Logic isn't taught either. The earliest forms of logic are found babies or young kids when they apply inductive logic to influence their actions, and also to accept human testimony.

Once again, logic is grounded in reason, reason is grounded in facts to deduce other facts. Facts being objective truths. Morals are subjective to the individual or groups of individuals. You cannot logically prove a moral because you have no fact to support the moral, just beliefs. If you think you can then:

Logically prove why teenage pregnancy is "wrong"
Logically prove why killing is "wrong"
Logically prove what is "right"
Logically prove what is "wrong"

 

[SuperBowser]

So no it's not the fact that only the mother can presevre the baby that obligates her, it's that she is responsible, she is at fault for the baby's SOD.

I hope I've made myself clear.

Well this goes back to a previous question. How can someone who is ***** and now carries an unwanted fetus be any more responsibile for this ''state of dependency'' than someone who had consensual unprotected sex and now carries chlamydia?

I don't think your choice of words are appropriate for what we're talking about. Perhaps that is why I don't see a difference here.

 

[Dre89]

Well this goes back to a previous question. How can someone who is ***** and now carries an unwanted fetus be any more responsibile for this ''state of dependency'' than someone who had consensual unprotected sex and now carries chlamydia?

I don't think your choice of words are appropriate for what we're talking about. Perhaps that is why I don't see a difference here.

A ***** mother is still causedly, or physically responsible. This is what the robber example is for, the person who gets robbed is innocent, yet is still obliged to repay the lender because they have put the lender in a SOD. It's the same with ****, yes the mother is innocent, but so is the baby, and despite the mother's innocence, events in her life have put an innocent human being in an SOD.

Saying that being ***** is an excuse for abortion leads to two negative implications. Firstly, you can then say that if you are innocently deprived of a right, you can then burden another innocent third party to reclaim that right that you were deprived of. This is what **** abortion is, the mother is deprived of the right to her body, but it is events in her life that put the baby in an SOD, so the baby is also innocent. It's not fair that simply because the mother was innocent, it is ok to deprive the innocent third party (the baby) of a right (the right to life) in order for the mother to restore one of hers (the right to her body).

The second implication is the absurd discrimination against innocent babies. It isn't fair that a baby who was the result of consensual sex, cannot have one of its rights violated in interest of the mother, yet a baby that was the result of a **** can, when in fact the **** baby isd still innocent, and had nothing to do iwth the mother being *****.

It's like treating innocent people badly simply because you're in a bad mood after a rough day; just because something abd happened to you doesn't mean yo ucan take it out on other people. What happens to you shouldn't have an effect on how you treat other people, yet **** abortion does that.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob- You're right about the sacrificing lives part, but then again I wouldn't argue that we are naturally inclined to sacrifice our lives as soon as we are physically possible to do so. We naturally have an inclination to sacrifice, but not instantly. So you may say that the universalisation theory is flawed, because it forbids a good practice such as sacrifice, but in truth all it forbids is sacrifice as a necessity as soon as physically possible, it's actually saying that to do that is not natural, which it isn't.

Well, we may have an inclination to have an abortion, but not all of us do it. So, all the universalisation theory says on this, is that us all having abortions instead of kids, is unnatural?

If this is the case, this argument is flawed, because as Guest 438 pointed out, natural =/= good.

 

[Dre89]

Bingo. By deliberately finding ways to not be influenced by your culture is how you in fact are influenced by your culture.

I stated that wrong. I don't deliberately rebell against my culture, because I would be in fact doing what you've said. What I do is make sure that none of my convictions are purely a result of my culture. If some of my convictions are in agreeance with those of the culture, then that is fine, as long i odn't have them simply because of the culture itself. So no I'm not really influenced by the culture.

Can't call it universal if not everyone believes in it as you do. As you see here...
Well, you could call the existence of nature universal, but not the laws pertaining to it.

It's not a universal belief, but it is universal in the sense that in believing it, you are conceding that your personal logic does not suffice for the acquisition of true knowledge, so instead you are applying to a universal grouding for belief.

Ah, but you are influenced by your culture. You must believe your culture is flawed or narrowed in some way so you look for something deliberately outside it. In this case, your culture has negatively influenced you, but nonetheless, you were influenced by your culture.

I corrected this above.

In reference to what I highlighted in red This can go both ways. Do you disregard the fact that others who believe the same as what I'm saying, also come from different cultural bases?[/COLOR]

The difference is though is that relativism emerges as appeals to one's own logic. There are several theories which transcend culture, but because natural theory is an attempt to live naturely, through natural inclinations, the fact that it does transcend cultures suggests that these natural inclinations and goods do exist.

You have to remember though that the point of me bringing that up was to refute your claim that all mroal ideas come from cultural influence.

As to the moral relativist part, you are correct for the most part except the part in Sea Green. Also since the opportunity has arisen I'll address the last part of your post.

You seem to follow on rigid definition of Moral Relativism but take heed that the definition is not as strict as you say.
Moral relativism doesn't define an objective "right" or an objective "wrong" because it believes that you can't define it due to the vast majority of "rights" and "wrongs" found in the world. Because of this, the statement you've made in green is false by definition. Moral Relativism holds that we can only define what is "right" or "wrong" in the singularity such as within an individual's beliefs. At this point you're thinking. "I've all ready shown that people from different cultural bases have developed a common thought to a universal entity." Okay, but that only defines "right" and "wrong" for that group of people, as such your group is still a singularity in which you can only define "right" or "wrong" within that singularity. That also means that your entity isn't universal. The existence of nature may be, but the laws that you attribute to nature are not.
The fact we are having this moral debate right now attests to this fact.[/COLOR]

But relativism still cannot escape the contradiction of positing an incorrect belief. Take these two statements-

There is an objective morality
There is no objective morality

Both cannot be right, and both cannot be wrong. One must be right and one must be wrong. The problem is that relativism then contradicts itself, because you have to say that there is no objective morality, and belief in one is a wrong belief. You have therefore admitted there is a right and a wrong. It doesn't matter if you endorse people developing their own moral codes, you still think the belief that that code is the universal standard which all humanity is to obide by is incorrect.

Your post only referenced the Abrahamic religions. And you used the term that they were "vastly different" I was pointing out the falsity in that statement by showing that they are closely related and how therefore, it's understandable how they are so similar.

But yeah as I said before it extends beyond Abrahamic religions.

What is the purpose of living? What is the meaning of life? That's something I've yet to find an answer to. This post here leads me to believe that you know why we are on this planet.
Just like the practice of hunting makes so many animals go extinct. We are just another species. We can will the extinction of other species. What makes this species so different? Just because we have more traits, a greater survival capacity? We're still just another species on this planet.
On the idea of reciprocation. Universalizing certain practices also would lead to extinction of humanity, in a different way. So I don't sound like I'm being an unnecessary jerk, I'll elaborate: Overpopulation and the exhaustion of the world's resources. If abortion isn't allowed then this will happen. Although following your supposed "natural" way of life, it leads to your supposed "unnatural" end. That's what seems contradictory to me.

Firstly, the purpose of living is human flourishing. What in fact constitues this flourishing is debateable, and that I do not know, the point is that human living is an end in itself. Humans are unique in that we are the only creatures that were created as means to an end, as all beings that aren't self-necessary (ie. God or the atheist singularity that initiated the big bang) are, but flourish as ends in themselves.

Animals are means to ends, this is evidenced by the fact that they do not exhibit the capacity to alter their goals, they are constantly stuck in the cyle of their ecosystem. What animals desire and contribute will never change on their own accord, they can only be changed by what governs them. Humans are distinct however, we bear the moral capacity to alter our desires, motivations and goals on our own accord. We can change what end we want to contribute to, this makes us an end in ourselves. Of course, the fact that we can change what we desire, or what we perceive perfection to be doesn't mean that what is human flourishing or perfection actually changes, just our ideal of it.

Secondly, I never said human extinction was an unnatural state. The world is overpopulated in terms of what the human social system can handle. The grand urbanisation, the heavy reliance on technology etc. means that catering for X people costs far more than catering for X people in another social system.

So even if the universalisation of non-abortion leads to this perceived overpopulation, and subsequently our extinction, the evil, or wrongdoing will not be in this unversalisation, but in the way human society is set up (the urbanisation, reliance on technology etc.).

I don't object to anything here. Except the part where you say we aren't governed by our ecosystems. Lets take someone from the coast and place them in the middle of the Sahara Desert. What could they possibly do?

That's a result of that person not having sufficient knowledge of how to live there. The fact that beings of the same species can live in those places suggests that is not an ecosystemal barrier, for in the case of animals, certain animals just can't naturally live in different climates.

The other point about us not being governed by ecosytems is that we don't contribute to any cycles. We interfere with and destroy other ecossytems, for there is no particular ecosystem deisgned for us.

And guess how our resources become depleted.
By always doing things the "natural" way as you call it. And you're right, it isn't willed. Because somewhere along the line we decided that contraceptives and abortion were wrong and took away the right to choose.

With that in mind and using your logic, the idea that everyone who gets pregnant must have their baby because it would be "unnatural" not to is actually "unnatural" in itself due to it leading to overpopulation, the depletion of resources, and our eventual extinction which you have declared to be "unnatural."

I covered this above.

I guess that neither of our perceptions follow what the world really is then.

That's a whole other debate.

Now how do you determine who that "someone" is?

The part I've highlighted in red is false. Logic is used to find objective truths. Objective truths being facts, not the subjective beliefs of the individual or groups of individuals.
There is no logical way to support a moral that can't be reciprocated by someone who believes opposite of you to support their own. Logic is based on facts. Morals are not, they're completely subjective.

Because logic itself, and applications of logic are universal. Logic isn't influenced by culture. On a grand scale, the fact that art, history, philosophy, science etc. are prominent in all cultures suggests that logic develops the same way everywhere.

Take for example human testimony. Young babies and children, despite cultural differences, all learn the same way, they all learn understand and accept human testimony.

So now let's take the issue of the sun rising. Applying inductive logic and suggesting the sun will rise tomorrow is far more logical than saying it won't, and this statement would be accepted in all cultures. What you have are two competing statements, one which is unversally accepted to be more logical than the other, it could only be unviersally accepted if there was a universal mode of logic.

Whenever procreation leads to my extinction is when.
Tell me, what are your thoughts on teenage pregnancy? It may seem unrelated to the topic right now. But I'll show you as this progresses.

Teenage pregnancy is a result of sex outside of marriage, which is something I am also against. This is because I have reasons, deriven from nature, that you should only be having sex with someone you are willing to have children with, therefore you should be willing to stay with that person for the rest of your life, for a father and a mother together is the best way to raise a child.

You are confusing what is "moral" and what is "natural" now. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is good.

But the whole point of natural law is to suggest that morality is adhering to what is natural. Moral theories such as utilitarianism and deontology don't follow that principle.

For example: It's not natural for humans to fly. But we fly using airplanes. Does this mean that airplanes are bad? That is basically what your logic entails by combining what is natural and what is moral.

The development of technology was always a natural thing, so it itself is a good. Transport is also natural, so it is good too. Considering that transport is a good, and the purpose of flying is for efficient transport, it is not corrupting a good at all, so it is fine by my criteria.

What is undesirable and what is morally wrong are not the same thing.

Getting a headache from thinking critically may be undesirable. But is it morally wrong?

Getting tripped by someone else is undesirable. But since the you're the one feeling pain, does that mean that you were doing something morally wrong?

Your last post said something completely different than this one. "Undesirable" and "Wrong" and two different words with seperate meanings.

I never said something undesirable is morally wrong. Mutilation of the body is undesirable because it is not natural, therefore bad. Being mutilated against your will is not morally wrong, for you do not will the evil which is occuring. Inflicting mutilation, or consenting to it, is immoral, for you are willing that which is evil.

So are airplanes a corruption of the natural process of traveling? Humans were not made to fly naturally. And again, if it is. Is it wrong? If so how?
I reiterate that what is natural and what is wrong are not one in the same.

I covered this above.

Refer to the airplane example.



A human being is comprised of multiple parts as well. And none of them are predetermined to become a human being due to the fact that none of those parts are guaranteed more than the present in their existence.

But a zygote is a unified entity in the sense in that if one body part such as the brian is damaged, the whole person is comprised. This is because of the unity between the brain and other parts of the body. This is different from the sperm and egg stage, for damage to an egg does not affect the wellbeing of the sperm.

Just as how I can say your definition of what natural law truly entails is just another opinion. Nothing about your opinion make it any more valid than my saying that female genital mutilation is completely justified because my god says so.

The whole point of natural law is that it reduces personal opinion, unlike relativism, which is a result purely of such an opinion. The natural lawyer concedes that it is foolish to assume that he/she can conclude all of the truths of the world with his/her own logic, unlike a relativist, who believes that they can conclude with their logic the truth of the world- that there is no truths. So instead, they submit to nature, they follow what is natural, and the fact that this submission transcends culture, and the fact that in surrendering one's logic, people conclude very similar ideas about what is natural, suggests there are natural goods.

You see, it's not about logic or opinion like relativism is, it's just 'going with the flow' so to speak, and noticing that you end up at the same place as everyone else who decided to do the same thing,

Then it's pretty obvious that something doesn't require "personhood" to be human.

I can just say that's your opinion.

Your assuming that personhood is part of X traits. If it is not a part of X traits to be considered human. Then it doesn't need it. If a baby exhibits X traits to be human while a fetus exhibits X-1 traits. Then the fetus cannot be human by that standard.
Also, personhood is being able to exhibit the traits of being a person notably showing individuality. Basically adept at displaying emotion and cognitive response. A baby can display cognitive response e.g. responding to it's mother's voice or crying whenver it's mother is away. And emotion through laughing at certain stimuli, and crying at times when mother goes away, or when left alone. Baby's also have their own temperaments. Some can tolerate being solitary longer than others. As it seems, a baby has individuality, and through that, personhood.

But that's just one opinion. If you're going to say that a fetus is not human until X weeks, then you are saying that there are certain traits that are required to be human. Considering that personhood is entirely exclusive to mature humans, why is that not one of them? I don't see how you justify requiring X traits, but not personhood.

So you're saying I didn't have a natural inclination towards the article even though I found it and posted it here? And through that I'm wrong. Then get this, I wasn't naturally inclined to your natural laws as you've witnessed, so they must not be right. That's basically what your logic is saying. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

I don't get what you're saying. Natural law doesn't imply that people can't do wrong things, the whole point is that doing right is what is natural

Someone gets their leg cut off. Is it now not natural for them to be able to move around? Is that person doing normal activities such as walking not natural since they need a prosthetic leg?

You seem to be missing the point that technology is fine unless it corrupts a natural goal. Walking is fine, and because the development of artificial agents is natural (otherwise we wouldn't be inclined to do it), developing an artificial agent that allows walking is fine.

By your logic here: We can move without shoes, shoes are an artificial agent, so wearing shoes must not be natural. Yet you said earlier that shoes are not "wrong".
Thrice proving my point that what is natural and what is moral are not one in the same.

I covered this above. Again, the development of technology is natural, so is trasportaion. Therefore, the development of of technology to aid transport is fine.

Then how come I wasn't inclined to your natural laws if they are supposedly "natural goods"

I'm not saying that humans always do the right thing, the whole point is that being moral is doing what is natural. The fact is, you, like every other human, have inclinations. All human inclinations are the same. We are all inclined to be social, to desire sex, food etc.

If things such as sex and food weren't objective goods, it would make no sense to be inclined towards them.

Once again, logic is grounded in reason, reason is grounded in facts to deduce other facts. Facts being objective truths. Morals are subjective to the individual or groups of individuals. You cannot logically prove a moral because you have no fact to support the moral, just beliefs. If you think you can then:

Logically prove why teenage pregnancy is "wrong"
Logically prove why killing is "wrong"
Logically prove what is "right"
Logically prove what is "wrong"

I've already covered most of these but again, because I acknowledge my personal logic is limited, I surrendered that for nature, which is not individual. In adhering to nature, I am following what we were designed to do, what we were designed to think right and wrong is. I can get a general idea of what right and wrong is by looking at what is natural and what isn't. Despite the length of my posts, it' just really a matter of common sense. One of the schools of thought which follows natural inclination is literally called "The School of Common Sense".

 

[SuperBowser]

Saying that being ***** is an excuse for abortion leads to two negative implications. Firstly, you can then say that if you are innocently deprived of a right, you can then burden another innocent third party to reclaim that right that you were deprived of. This is what **** abortion is, the mother is deprived of the right to her body, but it is events in her life that put the baby in an SOD, so the baby is also innocent. It's not fair that simply because the mother was innocent, it is ok to deprive the innocent third party (the baby) of a right (the right to life) in order for the mother to restore one of hers (the right to her body).

The second implication is the absurd discrimination against innocent babies. It isn't fair that a baby who was the result of consensual sex, cannot have one of its rights violated in interest of the mother, yet a baby that was the result of a **** can, when in fact the **** baby isd still innocent, and had nothing to do iwth the mother being *****.

I have not made the bolded claim even once, so I'm not responding to this argument. I used that example to show the terms you are using are cumbersome and confusing, and ultimately not getting your point across.

Honestly, I'm getting confused by the terms, examples and ideas you are putting across. We're beginning to go in circles. I'd prefer if we just dropped all your ''scenario examples'' and just discussed the topic at hand because, frankly, I'm not following you anymore, sorry. I thought I had already countered your previous examples.


You say a woman is ''causedly responsible''. Okay. But so what? I don't think you've made a convincing argument that extends from this assertion to why it dictates what the mother can(not) do with her body. I have argued from the beginning that this is still her body, that she can still do what she likes with her body and regardless of what might or might not be her causal responsibility, it doesn't change what she should be able to do with her body. A fetus can never trump her rights, especially when it puts so much physiological and psychological stress on her body.

I thought I'd made it clear at the start but just in case, I have avoided talking about a fetus qualifying as a human or not throughout this debate - I have focused on the woman's rights and, therefore, why it does not matter whether you believe the fetus to be a human or not.

 

[Dre89]

But then if you argue that a woman can kill a baby simply because it's in her body, regardless of the fact that it was actually her fault it was there in the first place, then we return to the surgical implantation situation.

By your logic, if I surgically implant a baby in my body, I have a right to kill it to protect my own interests, because as you said, it doesn't matter who's responsible for how it got there, it's my body and I can do what I like with it.

No matter how you try argue that it's not the same thing, the fact you said it doesn't matter that the woman is causedly responsible means that it doesn't matter how the baby got there, therefore I can kill it because it's in my body.