For the same reasons that any poor decision that might lead to it are given a negative value judgement. Ultimately we might consider the whole affair a lapse in judgement (and for many, the decision to abort being a sign of ones coming back into better judgement). Obviously, there are outlier scenarios in which none of this would apply.

(June 24, 2014 at 9:35 am)Rhythm Wrote: For the same reasons that any poor decision that might lead to it are given a negative value judgement.

sex?
sex is given a negative value judgement?

No, why would it be? Sex without contraception if you aren't planning to have a kid -is- given a negative value judgement. Obviously we don;t have to, but I think it's prudent move, don't you?

(June 24, 2014 at 9:10 am)pocaracas Wrote: Statistics time, huh?
https://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion...n_who.html
In the US, a country with roughly 150 million women, about 1.3 million have an abortion, every year.
That's almost 1%.
Imagine all of these women had some legal penalty applied to them for that practice.
1% of US women, every year (not the same group of women every year, but new women, for the most part).
If they get a penalty equivalent to murder... how long must they stay in prison? 20 years?

After 20 years, you'd have almost 20% of US women behind bars.

Don't give the Prison Industrial Complex new ideas!!

(June 24, 2014 at 9:10 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(June 24, 2014 at 8:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: How?

The trolley problem has two sets of people. At least one of them must die. Your choice is who dies. It's not kill or not to kill, like you suggested in your example where you wanted me to be the victim!

I see what you're getting at. But the mother isn't usually dying, and I think Arthur has covered the usual get out clauses/ acceptable exceptions.

In abortion the death of unborn child isn't inevitable, like with the trolley. So from your example, we can't conclude that killing one against killing many is moral at all. That choice was either null, no moral accountability or one choice less onerous than the other. If you had twins and could save one, would it be immoral to take one life? I don't think so.

(June 24, 2014 at 9:52 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 24, 2014 at 9:10 am)pocaracas Wrote: The trolley problem has two sets of people. At least one of them must die. Your choice is who dies. It's not kill or not to kill, like you suggested in your example where you wanted me to be the victim!

I see what you're getting at. But the mother isn't usually dying, and I think Arthur has covered the usual get out clauses/ acceptable exceptions.

In abortion the death of unborn child isn't inevitable, like with the trolley. So from your example, we can't conclude that killing one against killing many is moral at all. That choice was either null, no moral accountability or one choice less onerous than the other. If you had twins and could save one, would it be immoral to take one life? I don't think so.

I see... we're back on abortion, ok.
On one side, fetus dies and life for the woman goes on, on the other side... many things can happen, life for the woman does not go on, it changes, it may affect other people around her.... and the future child as well.
Unplanned, unprepared for, undesired pregnancies tend to result in neglected, abused, unloved children.
Is it moral to bring forth people into such conditions?

Would it not be better for the woman to abort and wait until she is ready to become a mother, thus providing all her love and caring to that welcomed child?
I know, it would be a different child, not the same genetic makeup... but is that relevant?

---

(June 24, 2014 at 9:43 am)Rhythm Wrote: No, why would it be? Sex without contraception if you aren't planning to have a kid -is- given a negative value judgement. Obviously we don;t have to, but I think it's prudent move, don't you?

Indeed it is prudent to have contraception if you're not planning on having kids... But not everyone has contraception available... except for abstinence, which we'll assume to be off the table.
Not everyone is aware of the correct usage of said contraceptives...
Some people think they are protected when they aren't...
Some people have sex while intoxicated (drunk or otherwise), so contraception doesn't even factor in (for some contraceptives)...

Shit happens, bad luck is real... should we give a negative value judgement to these people? Some of them... some not...
Reality is complex and things must be dealt on a case by case basis.

Good point pocaracas! Within the particular context of this discussion furthermore one could ask if forced birth wouldn't infringe on the rights of other potential persons to be born. A pregnant woman... Can't get pregnant.

Of course no ones thought top ask, but perhaps the "potential human being" would not wish to be born if we give it a fair and balanced sense of what it will be born into..lol. Who are we to force that child to be born!

(June 24, 2014 at 11:13 am)Rhythm Wrote: Of course no ones thought top ask, but perhaps the "potential human being" would not wish to be born if we give it a fair and balanced sense of what it will be born into..lol. Who are we to force that child to be born!

That reminds me...

I think a lot of red herrings are being thrown around because people disagree with the conclusion of Arthur's argument, but can't find any substantial point of attack from which to refute it. People are flailing around, attempting to hit the argument, and coming up with nothing but air.

Is morality subjective? Objective? Who really knows? Whether you agree that morality is objective or not, in most modern societies, it is agreed that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being (without justification), at least in the case of those already born. So, excepting justification for setting the general rule aside in particular cases, the rule is on the whole endorsed by modern societies, whether it was arrived at objectively or subjectively. The question then becomes whether the rule is being used correctly in his argument or not? So far, I don't think anybody has pointed to a clear flaw in his application of the rule. (Not saying there aren't flaws, just that nobody has hit upon any of them yet.)

As for the burden of proof question, from his statements, it appears that Arthur is appealing to an epistemological framework invented by the philosopher Stephen Toulmin. This is an alternative way of evaluating debates and arguments from the burden of proof framework being insisted upon. I'm relatively confident that few here are familiar with Toulmin's framework, but it is a legitimate epistemological standard which, while not unanimously endorsed, has wide acceptance in a broad range of fields. You may or may not find Toulmin's framework appealing, but he's not simply pulling something out of his ass and ignoring burden of proof.

(June 23, 2014 at 8:51 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: My motus ponens is as follows:
1. It is morally impermissible to kill an innocent human being
2. A fetus is an innocent human being
3. Ergo, it is morally impermissible to kill a fetus.

In the general case, it may be true that killing an innocent human being is wrong, at least as it applies to the case of born human beings, as the rule is generally conceived. However, any rule which is true within a given domain (the already born) can be made unsound if it is applied beyond the domain in which it is defined. You have, by your definition of genetic completeness, extended the domain over which the rule is normally applied to include the preborn. If this application were uncontroversial that would be one thing, but it is not. There are many who do not agree that the preborn qualify as a human being, and others who think that, even if the preborn is human, the general rule does not apply to them. So the general rule, when applied to the already born, is uncontroversial and widely accepted. However, you've extended the general rule to a novel domain, and it's not altogether clear that the general rule is sound when it is extended to this specific application. If I accept your extension of the definition of human being, and by implication, your extension of the general rule into this new domain, it is not clear that the specific application of the rule to the preborn is sound. Since you, by definition, have extended the typical domain of the general rule, and the general rule includes this specific application of it, doubt about the soundness of the general rule follows from its inclusion of this specific case. You might say that doubt about the specific case 'infects' the general rule. So by extending the domain of application, you've put the general rule in doubt. So you are appealing to a general rule to justify the specific case, but the specific case depends for its justification on the soundness of the general rule [across all domains] which you've put in doubt by extending it to this specific case. As such, appealing to the soundness of the general rule to justify the soundness of the specific case, when the soundness of the general rule has been put in doubt by your definitional extension is an example of circular reasoning. The soundness of the general rule is used to justify the soundness of the specific rule, but the soundness of the specific rule affects the justification of the general rule. By appealing to the general rule in this way, when your very argument itself as read puts the general rule in doubt, amounts to a form of begging the question. The same would occur if I were to extend the definition of 'person' to include chickens and cows; it would be unclear whether the general proscription against killing innocent persons still held. I cannot restore order to the rule by deriving my justification from the general rule because that which I seek to justify has put the general rule itself in doubt. That would be a case of begging the question as well.