Esquilax, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Lets just focus on murder as the starting point here. I think it is clear that we both believe that murder is morally wrong and should be avoided at all costs, correct? Murder is the killing of an innocent human being. My reasons for thinking a fetus was a human being was that it was genetically complete in its information and belonged to the species homo sapien. Im not mearly asserting that its murder in order to get some sort of emotional response. That is my argument. As for the organ argument, I believe that to be misplaced on multiple grounds. For one thing, I could see an argument that people when they are able to help, save another human life should be morally obligated to do so. I will not argue that point. I will argue that abortion violates a fetuses rights in the same way that it violates the mothers if we grant it humanity. Furthermore, preventing murder is a greater injustice than bodily discomfort will ever be. Volition is never the starting point for morality, an act is either morally wrong or morally right.

(June 17, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Beccs, the problem with your definition is it confuses human beings with their functionality instead of their ontology (what that thing actually is.)

Here's YOUR problem. You're defining a zygote as a human being based on it having the same DNA has a fully formed human being.

If you define it thusly, a female's eggs and a male's sperm cells, not to mention the millions of skin cells shed every year, are also human beings.

Ergo, a human being must be more than that which is defined by it's DNA.

There are a number of properties that beings which we assign legal rights have, that a zygote and a non-viable fetus lack. They are not the same thing as a fully formed human, and you asserting by fiat that they *are* ontologically the same is analogous to you pulling a fully-formed answer out of your ass.

Try again.

(June 17, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Thank you for the warm welcome, everyone! Unfortunately I can not eat cookies..I am allergic to gluten :/ I outlined my reasons for classifying fetus' as human beings in my first post and the following few posts. If and only if a fetus is a human being than abortion is murder. I am arguing that point. Beccs, the problem with your definition is it confuses human beings with their functionality instead of their ontology (what that thing actually is.) Not to mention the ethical issues that would result from such a view not even counting abortion.

Wrong. Murder is the unlawfully killing of another person. Abortion is the lawful killing Of a fetus. It doesn't qualify as murder.

(June 17, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Beccs, the problem with your definition is it confuses human beings with their functionality instead of their ontology (what that thing actually is.)

Here's YOUR problem. You're defining a zygote as a human being based on it having the same DNA has a fully formed human being.

If you define it thusly, a female's eggs and a male's sperm cells, not to mention the millions of skin cells shed every year, are also human beings.

Ergo, a human being must be more than that which is defined by it's DNA.

There are a number of properties that beings that we assign legal rights have, that a zygote and a non-viable fetus lack. They are not the same thing as a fully formed human, and you asserting by fiat that they *are* ontologically the same is analogous to you pulling a fully-formed answer out of your ass.

Try again.

Thank you.
Basically said everything I was going to respond with.

Um...

Quote:Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.

That's simply wrong.

Quote:Full Definition of MURDER
1
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2
a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder>
b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

If you are going to make up your own definitions for words this conversation is going to go nowhere real fast.

(June 17, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Thank you for the warm welcome, everyone! Unfortunately I can not eat cookies..I am allergic to gluten :/ I outlined my reasons for classifying fetus' as human beings in my first post and the following few posts. If and only if a fetus is a human being than abortion is murder. I am arguing that point. Beccs, the problem with your definition is it confuses human beings with their functionality instead of their ontology (what that thing actually is.) Not to mention the ethical issues that would result from such a view not even counting abortion.

For fuck sake.

Killing is not always murder agreed? As in war? Or defense of self or others?

Abortion is always killing.

But abortion is not always murder.

Now, wanna have a cracking at the situations I outlined?

Edit. Triple cross post on the definition of murder. Tells you something

i wouldn't even consider it killing because there's no proof that it has a consciousness at that point.

also - it's definitely not genetically fully formed in the way that a human being is genetically fully formed.

(June 17, 2014 at 5:47 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Esquilax, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Lets just focus on murder as the starting point here. I think it is clear that we both believe that murder is morally wrong and should be avoided at all costs, correct?

Correct.

Quote: Murder is the killing of an innocent human being. My reasons for thinking a fetus was a human being was that it was genetically complete in its information and belonged to the species homo sapien.

As my colleague CD has already pointed out, there are problems with that definition of humanity. Under that definition, a corpse is a human being; is it possible to kill a corpse? Or are we now seeing that there's more to human life than just DNA?

Quote: Im not mearly asserting that its murder in order to get some sort of emotional response. That is my argument.

Something tells me that if we extracted the fetus from the host and then just left it to fend for itself, you would object to that too, yes? If so, let's not continue under this false premise that it's the extinguishing of life that you are concerned with here.

And that's assuming I accept your definition of human life, which I do not, for reasons that begin with the objection I raised above and continue through numerous other points that I'll save for later.

Quote: As for the organ argument, I believe that to be misplaced on multiple grounds. For one thing, I could see an argument that people when they are able to help, save another human life should be morally obligated to do so.

Even when it negatively impacts their own health? Even when it could kill them? Are you in favor of knocking people out against their will, performing invasive surgery on them and giving their organs to other people who need them, or aren't you?

Care to consider the path that leads down, if we remove a person's legal right to their own organs?

Quote: I will not argue that point. I will argue that abortion violates a fetuses rights in the same way that it violates the mothers if we grant it humanity.

And as I said earlier, when a person is violating your rights it isn't a violation to take steps to prevent them from doing so. A person on your property can be removed from it by force, despite that ostensibly violating their own autonomy.

Quote: Furthermore, preventing murder is a greater injustice than bodily discomfort will ever be. Volition is never the starting point for morality, an act is either morally wrong or morally right.

You're being overly simplistic; context matters. If I kill a person in self defense, is that morally wrong? In the defense of others? I freely grant that it's not ideal to kill someone, but you're attempting to force black and white thinking onto a world that's fundamentally grey. I'd suggest you stop it and start thinking based on the nuances of the world, rather than your presuppositions.

(June 17, 2014 at 6:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 5:47 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Esquilax, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Lets just focus on murder as the starting point here. I think it is clear that we both believe that murder is morally wrong and should be avoided at all costs, correct?

Correct.

I would not agree to "at all costs". We can simply place every human being in solitary confinement: no more murder.

I doubt many would find the cost in liberty to be acceptable.

(June 17, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 6:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Correct.

I would not agree to "at all costs". We can simply place every human being in solitary confinement: no more murder.

I doubt many would find the cost in liberty to be acceptable.

That's a good point, I guess I was being too broad in my answer there. I'll add, "to the extent that it is reasonable to prevent murder, one should," instead, then.