And why do you value the 3 month old more than the zygote? They both have potential for consciousness.

(March 27, 2014 at 7:38 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I'm afraid I am a little bit lost, yes. One would not hesitate to assume a certain posture if it would increase the chances of a baby's survival were it to be unwell. If I read your argument correctly, you consider the potential of an entity the critical factor in what moral obligations one has towards it. So what I'm not getting is why you consider a zygote and a baby, who have the same potential, to be worthy of different degrees of intervention for their protection.

Moral protection means society has an obligation to protect that being from deliberately being harmed by another being. Abortion is an act which deliberately harms another being. Its black and white.

The obligation to protect a being from unintentional harm is not black and white. You don't have an obligation to save the child that fell into the path of an on coming train if doing so means sacrificing your own life. Now you may choose to put your life in jeopardy to save your son and not choose to put your life in jeopardy to save a zygote. The reason is because you value your son more than a zygote.

---

(March 27, 2014 at 7:42 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: And why do you value the 3 month old more than the zygote? They both have potential for consciousness.

3 month olds are more cute.

(March 27, 2014 at 8:01 am)Heywood Wrote: 3 month olds are more cute.

A stupid response to cover the fact that your views are illogical, as demonstrated with my scenario. You cannot (or won't) justify why you value a 3 month old baby more than a zygote.

(March 27, 2014 at 8:08 am)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 8:01 am)Heywood Wrote: 3 month olds are more cute.

A stupid response to cover the fact that your views are illogical, as demonstrated with my scenario. You cannot (or won't) justify why you value a 3 month old baby more than a zygote.

Oh come on. He was being flip. We've managed a civil and civilised debate on this so far, no need for attitude.

That would have been fine if he had actually answered my question, but he didn't, so it isn't.

(March 27, 2014 at 8:01 am)Heywood Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 7:38 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I'm afraid I am a little bit lost, yes. One would not hesitate to assume a certain posture if it would increase the chances of a baby's survival were it to be unwell. If I read your argument correctly, you consider the potential of an entity the critical factor in what moral obligations one has towards it. So what I'm not getting is why you consider a zygote and a baby, who have the same potential, to be worthy of different degrees of intervention for their protection.

Moral protection means society has an obligation to protect that being from deliberately being harmed by another being. Abortion is an act which deliberately harms another being. Its black and white.

The obligation to protect a being from unintentional harm is not black and white. You don't have an obligation to save the child that fell into the path of an on coming train if doing so means sacrificing your own life. Now you may choose to put your life in jeopardy to save your son and not choose to put your life in jeopardy to save a zygote. The reason is because you value your son more than a zygote.

So the distinction then is that we have an obligation to protect people from intentional harm, but not from unintentional harm?

Why?

Quote: Abortion is an act which deliberately harms another being. Its black and white.

Sadly, very little in life is black and white. Abortion certainly isn't. Is killing always wrong?

The "potential for conciousness" is dependant upon the development of the central nervous system.
The point of CNS development in embryos is roughly the cut-off point for abortions for precisely this reason.

(March 27, 2014 at 6:53 am)No_God Wrote: Arguing on the internet does absolutely nothing.

Not strictly true. While I can't recall a moment where I've persuaded anyone on here who I'm arguing with, I imagine those lurking and browsing might get something out of reading these discussions. In fact there's often been times where I've argued and realised my position is pure bollocks. Sometimes internet arguments have some use.

Her body, her choice. Simple as that.

(March 26, 2014 at 3:49 pm)heathendegenerate Wrote: That is the question. How do you fellows/ladies view abortion? Are your answers going to be as predictable as i assume they'll be? Population, her vag her rights ,etc.? Should there be some monitoring? How can some of the cases not be kind of...fucked up? Stretch marks? I have this christian-ish view that a baby is a baby the minute it's detectable. It seems like something that shouldn't be such an easy thing to do for women. The people creating bills need to change things. Women need people telling them if they can or can't. stretch marks isn't a fucking reason. lol I know, i'm stupid.. oh well.. In my stupid opinion, a heart-beat deserves the right answers. A step-back for civil rights? Women need to be responsible..a few? You can't just kill babies because your unreligious/whorish.. capable but unwilling. Poor, sure..retarded/defects, sure..there is some kind of line that needs to be drawn.

I realize im not einstein..but i feel like teaching discipline through laws is the way to go.Lol sorry..oh, your academic future is at jeopardy? Condoms and birth control are not 100% effective. More babies the better.

Abortion should be legal no matter what reason the woman has, even if you don't like it. It's detestable that just because a woman doesn't want to be a mother, she is called "whorish". It's also detestable that you think women "need laws" telling them what to do with their own bodies, as if anyone else has any right over their lives. For the record, I do not think a mere heartbeat constitutes a person, so I do not believe abortion is murder. Abortion is a reproductive choice and vilifying women who choose it by calling them stupid sluts or whatever else makes me retch.

---

(March 27, 2014 at 7:39 am)Heywood Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 7:35 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Heywood, i'm going to introduce a scenario that I've used before:
You are holding in your right hand, a 3 month old baby.
In your left, you are holding a petri dish containing a human zygote.
You have to drop one of them.
Which one do you drop?

I ask you this because, as you say, these two both have potential for consciousness and life. So you shouldn't be able to choose. That may be the answer you give but I don't think its the answer you would think.
You would drop the zygote, like everybody else, because you realise there is a difference.

Why do I have to drop one?

If I can only save one, I save the 3 month old because I value the 3 month old more than I value the zygote.....but I do value both.

On the subject of values and hypothetical situations, you can see why a woman would "drop the zygote", as it were. Say in one hand you have a zygote and in the other you have the future you've been planning for for years. Finishing school, paying off your debts, travelling, etc. Hell, it may not even be that rosy of a future, just a future without the responsibility and monetary investment of a child. Many women value that much more than a zygote.