(August 11, 2014 at 5:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: That's why I added in that bit about the factual case:all of the evidence we possess points to the idea that the mind is an emergent property of the brain, and at the point of conception there is no brain, and hence no mind. Thus, in order to claim that one's identity begins at conception, you would need to disregard the evidence we have in biology.

No, you just need to define "identity" in a way that doesn't begin with the emergence of the mind.

Quote:Morals aren't objective, but the values we use to determine morals are; living is preferable to dying, pain is bad, etc etc.

Maybe, but adopting a moral system based on any of those is still an arbitrary choice.

Quote:Besides, when I said "maps to reality," I was discussing the factual and logical structures of the argument. Specifically, the pro-life case disregards large swathes of biological science in order to reach its conclusion, and doesn't map to reality because of that.

True dat. Ignoring reality to go on one's emotional preferences is not a good way to argue. I feel the same way as a vegetarian-- people often ignore or undermine biological facts of animal suffering, or exaggerate biological "facts" of nutritional necessity, in order to "prove" what they just feel they want to be right.

(August 11, 2014 at 5:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: No, you just need to define "identity" in a way that doesn't begin with the emergence of the mind.

And any way you attempted to do that- even leaving aside the complete absurdity of premising the argument on defining "identity" as "not identity"- would contain some logical absurdity or another to render the argument ineffective, or reliant on special pleading.

Quote:Maybe, but adopting a moral system based on any of those is still an arbitrary choice.

It's evolved; those whose morals don't prize life over death and pleasure over pain generally aren't around to take part in the process. Besides, what else would one base morality on, in place of the well being of the things that can create moral frameworks?

(August 11, 2014 at 6:09 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 11, 2014 at 5:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: No, you just need to define "identity" in a way that doesn't begin with the emergence of the mind.

And any way you attempted to do that- even leaving aside the complete absurdity of premising the argument on defining "identity" as "not identity"- would contain some logical absurdity or another to render the argument ineffective, or reliant on special pleading.

I don't think so. You can think of DNA as a property of a body holding a mind, or of the mind as a property of DNA. You see the mind as the identity. But Christians (and perhaps non-Christian anti-abortionists) see mind as the conscious expression of the genetic (or spiritual) identity that already exists. You can argue whether that matters or even whether it's true-- but I don't think it's special pleading or logical absurdity to view things in that way.

Quote:

Quote:Maybe, but adopting a moral system based on any of those is still an arbitrary choice.

It's evolved; those whose morals don't prize life over death and pleasure over pain generally aren't around to take part in the process. Besides, what else would one base morality on, in place of the well being of the things that can create moral frameworks?

Meta-morality. I like it.

(August 11, 2014 at 2:30 am)Rhythm Wrote: I think you'd have to be awfully damned spotty about when you chose to leverage any personal morality that made the claim that you have a responsibility to provide life for a moral subject. The list of moral subjects in this world is loooong. Are you providing life for all of them? No? How many of them then? How many is enough? Let's negotiate.

I don't think you actually read my arguement, because I specifically state that the premise is that you made a choice that led to an implicit responsibility for THAT PARTICULAR moral subject or entity. This is similar (NOT IDENTICAL OR INTERCHANGABLE - internet trolls everywhere) to adopting a child or even a dog - you made a choice that lead to that subject being dependent upon you and you, in my estimation, have a moral responsibility to adhere to that consquence until such time as you may safely abdicate it to another - eg you can't dump a child on the street because you don't want it anymore - you actually have to take it to the state and relinquish custody. No where do i state that you have a responsibility to ALL subjects or entities! ONLY those that you have made a commiment to either Explicitly or Implicitly
Negotiation over

(August 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote:

---

(August 11, 2014 at 2:30 am)Rhythm Wrote: I think you'd have to be awfully damned spotty about when you chose to leverage any personal morality that made the claim that you have a responsibility to provide life for a moral subject. The list of moral subjects in this world is loooong. Are you providing life for all of them? No? How many of them then? How many is enough? Let's negotiate.

I don't think you actually read my arguement, because I specifically state that the premise is that you made a choice that led to an implicit responsibility for THAT PARTICULAR moral subject or entity. This is similar (NOT IDENTICAL OR INTERCHANGABLE - internet trolls everywhere) to adopting a child or even a dog - you made a choice that lead to that subject being dependent upon you and you, in my estimation, have a moral responsibility to adhere to that consquence until such time as you may safely abdicate it to another - eg you can't dump a child on the street because you don't want it anymore - you actually have to take it to the state and relinquish custody. No where do i state that you have a responsibility to ALL subjects or entities! ONLY those that you have made a commiment to either Explicitly or Implicitly

---

Negotiation over

Why? Because you say so? That's a laugh.

(August 11, 2014 at 3:56 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 10, 2014 at 10:17 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: So, to conclude, I'm not sure what saying I have different morals then you really accomplishes, if you have different morals, what are they and why do they lead you to believe my position is not a moral one? If you can't do that then maybe you should reconsider your moral positions or your processs of determining your personal morality.

The content of your morals is less important than your ability to support and justify them using argument and evidence that maps to reality, in accordance with principles of well being- and many others- that form the cornerstone of morality.

Just saying what your morals are isn't compelling, it's an assertion. In the case of abortion stuff, every pro-life argument relies on some form of logical fallacy or disregard for the factual case, in order to function. Hence, pro-life morals, from what I have experienced, do not map to reality, and thus have no validity.

First, I do partially agree with you. The ability to support and justify you moral positions is important, which is WHY I JUSTIFIED MY MORAL ARGUEMENT -- please go back and re-read my posts if you missed them -- and I have asked for reasons that my conclusions should not be considered moral or justified - I would sincerely be interested (no sarcasm, actually interested) in hearing arguements to my direct points.
Next "map to reality" is a means of ascertaining truth, not necessarily morality - murder, rape, etc "map to reality", ie actually exist, but I personally do not find them moral actions.
Finally your statement "EVERY pro-life arugment relies on some form of logical fallacy" is itself a logical fallicy, that of presupposition (not the evangelical kind). Have you heard EVERY arguement? I'm not sure if you have even heard mine, but you discount them out of hand has inherantly having a logical flaw because they lead to a conclusion you do not agree with. My arguement may indeed have a logical flaw, and again I would be interested to hear arguements directed at them, but the simple fact that it supports something you do not DOES NOT MAKE IT INHERENTLY FLAWED, rather I would argue you assertion is a flaw. It is possible the pro-life arguements you have heard may fit you descripition, but to extrapolate it to all pro-life arguements is no more true then saying this lump of coal is of little value so all lumps of carbon are of little value monitarily... the diamonds my wife keeps looking would beg to differ.

---

(August 13, 2014 at 11:03 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(August 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote:

---

I don't think you actually read my arguement, because I specifically state that the premise is that you made a choice that led to an implicit responsibility for THAT PARTICULAR moral subject or entity. This is similar (NOT IDENTICAL OR INTERCHANGABLE - internet trolls everywhere) to adopting a child or even a dog - you made a choice that lead to that subject being dependent upon you and you, in my estimation, have a moral responsibility to adhere to that consquence until such time as you may safely abdicate it to another - eg you can't dump a child on the street because you don't want it anymore - you actually have to take it to the state and relinquish custody. No where do i state that you have a responsibility to ALL subjects or entities! ONLY those that you have made a commiment to either Explicitly or Implicitly

---

Negotiation over

Why? Because you say so? That's a laugh.

No, because the statement was how MANY subjects should we be responsibile for - I HAVE STATED THAT, and it is NOT all of the, MY arguement is wholly on the entity(ies) brought about by the direct action of the participant and nothing else. It does not apply to anyone else, and there is NOT a negotiation. So the negotiation is OVER.
So HA-HA

---

The discussion of identity and more broadly what constitutes a human or moral being that gain rights is interesting -- I don't think it is completely necessary for my responsibility based arguement against most abortions, but is interesting.
It is very difficult to place restiction on human being beyond a being that is genetically human because to do so often leads to morally dubious outcomes. For example, if the presense of conscience is necessary then a patient undergoing general anesthesia may lose their "human rights" and that doesn't seem inherintly moral. Does the ability to reason have to be a requirement? then you are not human for atleast a few years after birth, yet infanticide is by almost all measures (expect maybe the old testament) wrong.
These arguements often occur on and on for most any restriction, though if you have one that does not I would be interested to hear it.

(August 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: ...the premise is that you made a choice that led to an implicit responsibility for THAT PARTICULAR moral subject or entity... you made a choice that lead to that subject being dependent upon you and you, in my estimation, have a moral responsibility to adhere to that consquence until such time as you may safely abdicate it to another

The problem with the 'responsibility' argument is that the means test for abortion becomes 'Were you aware of or subject to your responsibility in the circumstances surrounding conception?'. This is an near impossible test to administrate because of the possibility of diminished responsibility. A just system would have to establish responsibility before preventing abortion (rather than assuming responsibility and trying to establish irresponsibility before allowing abortion). So though this may be a powerful personal argument, it is of no use when setting legislation: the amount of time and evidence it can take to establish responsibility is reason enough to reject your argument as a mechanism for legislating abortion-practice.

(August 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: I don't think you actually read my arguement, because I specifically state that the premise is that you made a choice that led to an implicit responsibility for THAT PARTICULAR moral subject or entity. This is similar (NOT IDENTICAL OR INTERCHANGABLE - internet trolls everywhere) to adopting a child or even a dog - you made a choice that lead to that subject being dependent upon you and you, in my estimation, have a moral responsibility to adhere to that consquence until such time as you may safely abdicate it to another - eg you can't dump a child on the street because you don't want it anymore - you actually have to take it to the state and relinquish custody. No where do i state that you have a responsibility to ALL subjects or entities! ONLY those that you have made a commiment to either Explicitly or Implicitly
Negotiation over

Of course I read your argument gigglesticks, I'm the one that's been correcting your usage of terms. I accepted that we had a responsibility, remember, but not -to provide life-...because we would have to be spotty about that, understand? Pages ago I mentioned that you have defined abortion as immoral, and thusly decided that it is- and it still holds. We aren't arguing to that conclusion, if your premise is that we have a responsibility to provide life for a particular moral subject (for whatever reason, and "choice" has got to be the flakiest one we could have appealed to). Your "argument" is circular, or, at least- it will be- if I can help you find it. Unless you take some of that stuff out of the premise, that is.

(August 14, 2014 at 7:22 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(August 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: ...the premise is that you made a choice that led to an implicit responsibility for THAT PARTICULAR moral subject or entity... you made a choice that lead to that subject being dependent upon you and you, in my estimation, have a moral responsibility to adhere to that consquence until such time as you may safely abdicate it to another

The problem with the 'responsibility' argument is that the means test for abortion becomes 'Were you aware of or subject to your responsibility in the circumstances surrounding conception?'. This is an near impossible test to administrate because of the possibility of diminished responsibility. A just system would have to establish responsibility before preventing abortion (rather than assuming responsibility and trying to establish irresponsibility before allowing abortion). So though this may be a powerful personal argument, it is of no use when setting legislation: the amount of time and evidence it can take to establish responsibility is reason enough to reject your argument as a mechanism for legislating abortion-practice.

YES YES YES as I have stated multiple times, this is a MORAL question and arguement NOT a LEGAL arguement that I am raising. I have made no proposal for legislation and would argue this is the wrong forum for that (politics seems more appropriate). My point is here is an arguement that I feel explains (to me) why abortion is MORALLY wrong - kinda like the title of the topic indicates

---

(August 14, 2014 at 9:57 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: I don't think you actually read my arguement, because I specifically state that the premise is that you made a choice that led to an implicit responsibility for THAT PARTICULAR moral subject or entity. This is similar (NOT IDENTICAL OR INTERCHANGABLE - internet trolls everywhere) to adopting a child or even a dog - you made a choice that lead to that subject being dependent upon you and you, in my estimation, have a moral responsibility to adhere to that consquence until such time as you may safely abdicate it to another - eg you can't dump a child on the street because you don't want it anymore - you actually have to take it to the state and relinquish custody. No where do i state that you have a responsibility to ALL subjects or entities! ONLY those that you have made a commiment to either Explicitly or Implicitly
Negotiation over

Of course I read your argument gigglesticks, I'm the one that's been correcting your usage of terms. I accepted that we had a responsibility, remember, but not -to provide life-...because we would have to be spotty about that, understand? Pages ago I mentioned that you have defined abortion as immoral, and thusly decided that it is- and it still holds. We aren't arguing to that conclusion, if your premise is that we have a responsibility to provide life for a particular moral subject (for whatever reason, and "choice" has got to be the flakiest one we could have appealed to). Your "argument" is circular, or, at least- it will be- if I can help you find it. Unless you take some of that stuff out of the premise, that is.

You made a claim that I made a circular arguement, but that is NOT what i did - EVER = please quote where I made such a claim. I DID state I feel abortion is morally wrong and HERE IS WHY - that is calld a justification that could easily be reversed and if you say here is my arguement and the conclusion that I reach from it is abotion is wrong. I am giving you BOTH my arguement and the conclusion - so OF COURSE they are going to be consistent - gigglesticks - just because you think you corrected some of my terms does not mean you UNDERSTOOD my arguement. My arguement is that we chose to have sex and that we therefore chose to be responsible for the repercussion of THOSE actions - and if it involves a moral subject then we DO have a responsibility to that subject. IF you do not feel the fetus is a moral subject, then fine the rest of the arguement does not hold and we can have a different discussion on wether the fetus is a moral subject in a thread dedicated to that and I would be happy to. Not sure where that arguement is circular, but please enlighten me.

Believing the fetus is a moral subject does not equal believing abortion is morally wrong.