Abortion is morally wrong

[Heywood]

.....Can you site any examples besides a human corpse? I think this example is an ineffective argument because it is incoherent. A corspse is a *dead* human being. You cant kill something that is already dead. In the case of fetuses, the nature of it being alive is assumed. As for narrow arguments, I am using Modus ponens as my argument structure. Simply, if P, Q. P ergo Q. If fetuses are human beings than abortion is wrong. Fetuses are human beings therefore abortion is wrong.

Citing the example of a corpse is to try to make a point that just because something is a human being doesn't mean it has rights. It fails of course because we are discussing if human beings have a right to life. Such a discussing implicitly assumes we are talking about living human beings. For folks like Esquilax.....sometimes you do have to spell out the implicit assumptions.

Since we are talking about corpses now Arthur, let me ask you this question. Is it morally wrong to destroy a corpse which is being preserved in the hope of bringing it back to life at a later date? Should all those corpses cryonically preserved(frozen) be granted moral protection? Sure there is no chance they could be revived and treated today but there is some small chance that they could be revived and treated in the future. I would say cryonically preserved corpses should be granted some moral protection.

[The Grand Nudger]

Moral protection for meat popsicles? They made their choice and rolled the dice. No choice made by another without my involvement should have a binding moral obligation placed upon me. They already paid for legal protection, insofar as the provider of said service can offer...and that was well delineated in the terms. WTF use is "moral protection" anyway? Give me the good legal stuff...the stuff that actually does work. You see, using the proper tool for the job is far less confusing, and far more flexible.

Wouldn;t it be simple to say "abortion may have moral stigma attached in certain cases(responsibility, etc) but should also enjoy legal protection as an act - as an issue of self determination"? "I don;t agree with what you did there, but it's not illegal" - like everything else........

---

Recently I read that a couple on IVF in Sydney had twin boys terminated because they wanted a girl. I know that the standard response as a male is for me to say it's not my body, not my business, but my brain doesn't allow me to just switch off on certain subjects.
To me, that couple's actions were inhuman.
I wouldn't call them murderers but I wouldn't give them the time of day either.

Agreed. My sympathies lay decidedly pro-life right up to the point of law..at which point they do a 180 and get the fuck away from the loons on that side of the fence.

[Heywood]

Moral protection for meat popsicles? They made their choice and rolled the dice. No choice made by another without my involvement should have a binding moral obligation placed upon me. They already paid for legal protection, insofar as the provider of said service can offer...and that was well delineated in the terms. WTF use is "moral protection" anyway? Give me the good legal stuff...the stuff that actually does work. You see, using the proper tool for the job is far less confusing, and far more flexible.

Suppose a man is cryonically frozen. His wife finds out he was banging his secretary. She's mad and decides to destroy his body so there is no chance he can ever be revived. Should she be prosecuted?

[The Grand Nudger]

Would already be handled by every states statutes concerning graveyards and tombs, at the least. Would also be covered by tort.

IOW - it's already illegal. Yeah, she'd be prosecuted.

This sort of thing already happens. Think OJ, aqcuitted in a criminal trial, made to pay restitution regardless essentially by tort.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax, I will attempt to address your arguments in this post.

I believe what a human fits firmly in with genetics. In fact, I believe this is all it comes down too. Enter my Domesticus Marsus example: A being who thinks, behaves and looks exactly like us but has a different genetic history and evolved from different organisms on a different planet. This organism though functionally equivalent, is not a human being.

You understand that you can have multiple qualifiers to a thing, right? A biological definition of a human doesn't just stop at genetics, it also includes physical traits and, if we're furthermore talking about an alive human, mental capacity, physiological processes, and so on. What people have been explaining to you, over and over, is that just focusing on genetics is too simple, too wide an umbrella; genetics is a required aspect of the definition, yes, but it's not the only aspect of the definition, and I suspect the reason you're so focused in on that is because you understand, as we all do, that broadening the definition to make it functional would also put fetuses outside of it.

Moreover, please note the difference, even if we were to accept your definition, between "human being," and "living human being." See, all you've done, even if you're successful with your argument, is move the problem back one step, so now we've got to discuss whether this fetal human being is alive like a regular size one is. It's not a helpful tack to take.

You state that under your definition certain things would be considered human beings that clearly are not. Can you site any examples besides a human corpse? I think this example is an ineffective argument because it is incoherent. A corspse is a *dead* human being.

Ah, so you do accept that, even talking about the genetics side of things alone, it's actually life/death that dictates the right to life, not genetics?

This is actually really frustrating: you stick to your genetic claim to the hilt, but the moment you're presented with a problem for that you switch to some other definition without even realizing you're doing it. You're no longer talking about genetics here, because functionally there's no genetic difference between a living human and a dead one, and saying "but that one's dead!" means you're considering some additional aspect that you haven't included in your claim before now. You're trying to palm some very important cards to make us play by rules you yourself won't.

You cant kill something that is already dead.

Right, so there's more to the right to life argument than just genetics. I know this, I was just waiting for you to catch up. Now that we're there, perhaps you'd like to argue as to why a fetus classifies as alive and not merely biologically functional?

In the case of fetuses, the nature of it being alive is assumed.

Sorry, I'm not going to accept presuppositions. Evidence and arguments, or you'll be dismissed out of hand. You don't just get to assume the premise you're trying to argue for here, because if you can do that then I can equally assume that a fetus isn't alive.

You really need to do better than this.

As for narrow arguments, I am using Modus ponens as my argument structure. Simply, if P, Q. P ergo Q. If fetuses are human beings than abortion is wrong. Fetuses are human beings therefore abortion is wrong.

If corpses are human beings, then killing a corpse is wrong. Corpses are human beings, therefore corpse-killing is wrong.

See how ridiculous that sounds? But are you really going to argue that a corpse isn't genetically human? This is the problem here: you're changing definitions, sometimes between paragraphs, in order to have the argument that's most convenient to you at the time. It's either profoundly dishonest or profoundly short sighted, and you need to understand that it's a problem either way.

In regards to the car crash example, it was an illustration showing where the blame should directly lie in regards to Thomsons article. Which ties into this principle.

If one puts another in a situation without their consent, that situation can not be worse than they would have been in otherwise, and that consent to put someone in a dependent situation, includes the responsibility of caring for that person.

But a consistent application of your own reasoning shows that no care should be given to car crash victims at all. Or are you attempting special pleading here, where women know the potential consequences of sex and thus should be afforded no help if they get pregnant, and yet drivers know the potential consequences of driving and yet should be given help if they crash?

This means that:
If causing someone to exist and then killing that person, does more harm than not causing such a person to exist, abortion is not permissible.

So now demonstrate that a fetus is alive sufficiently for its termination to be more important than, say, the killing of germs or insects. There are still large swathes of your argument that you're yet to even acknowledge, Arthur. You just assert them.

Also,
If one consents to a situation where another is dependent upon them, and that it would have been otherwise true that the person was not dependent upon them, the person consenting is obligated to provide for the other.

Right, so in a car crash the driver should be the one performing the necessary medical procedures on the passengers. Got it.

Furthermore, I shall quote you, "We do not prevent other humans from seeking to mitigate the consequences of their actions." Of course we do when by mitigating their they commit a morally impermissible act.

First of all, you haven't shown that abortion is morally impermissible, you've just asserted it a bunch. Secondly, you're wrong anyway, because we take context into consideration; murder is acceptable in the defense of oneself or others, for example. These are called "mitigating circumstances," and you haven't even begun to argue that abortion doesn't fall under that umbrella.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't recall having ever heard of anyone being charged with or held for "committing a morally impermissable act". Is that on the books in some podunk state?

[Heywood]

Would already be handled by every states statutes concerning graveyards and tombs, at the least. Would also be covered by tort.

IOW - it's already illegal. Yeah, she'd be prosecuted.

This sort of thing already happens. Think OJ, aqcuitted in a criminal trial, made to pay restitution regardless essentially by tort.

I'm sure she could be prosecuted for property damage or desecrating a grave site. However, is it a more egregious offense that she destroys a frozen body that has some, albeit small, expectation of future life as opposed to a body buried in a grave that has no reasonable expectation at future life?

The penalty for destroying a corpse frozen in the hope it can be revived later should be greater than destroying a corpse left to rot in the ground.....in my opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sure she could be prosecuted for property damage or desecrating a grave site. However, is it a more egregious offense that she destroys a frozen body that has some, albeit small, expectation of future life as opposed to a body buried in a grave that has no reasonable expectation at future life?

The penalty for destroying a corpse frozen in the hope it can be revived later should be greater than destroying a corpse left to rot in the ground.....in my opinion.

Some would say that no corpses are "left to rot in the ground"

-which might explain why we show such deference to a pile of molecules as to make it law in every state that you can;t screw with them. It's like writing a law stating that you can;t stir a pile of leafs in the forest.

We don't prosecute for murder based on somethings "expectation of life", but rather, the actuality of that life. You can;t "murder" something that might one day bre alive. For it to be murder..that thing has to have been alive right up to the point where you snuffed it (or set events in such a manner as to lead to the same inevitably). Frozen bodies simply don;t qualify...and that much is probably layed out in their contracts - just as info for the purchaser of the service...to cover the cryo companies ass when they eventually pull the plug on these dupes. If/when we reach a point where it becomes viable..it could be handled under the same law as comatose patients. Their contract is essentially a living will, that holds so long as the agreement by the purchaser/funds do.

(the crux of this...and we could go on forever..is that secular law and legality has far surpassed morality, whether secular or otherwise - in usefulness and utility. In fact, if we were to rewrite our moral codes from scratch with well thought out and well presented arguments..we would probably end up with something that isn;t altogether different from, say, georgia's state codes. I'd be willing to lay money on that bet, anyway, give it some thought)

[Heywood]

...We don't prosecute for murder based on somethings "expectation of life", but rather, the actuality of that life. You can;t "murder" something that might one day bre alive. For it to be murder..that thing has to have been alive right up to the point where you snuffed it (or set events in such a manner as to lead to the same inevitably).....

If living is the only requirement to be able to be murdered then a fetus can be murdered.

[MJ the Skeptical]

...We don't prosecute for murder based on somethings "expectation of life", but rather, the actuality of that life. You can;t "murder" something that might one day bre alive. For it to be murder..that thing has to have been alive right up to the point where you snuffed it (or set events in such a manner as to lead to the same inevitably).....

If living is the only requirement to be able to be murdered then a fetus can be murdered.

Why stop at a fetus? If you jack off that's also murder, or a woman who doesn't fertilize an egg, also MURDER!!