Come to England

[DeistPaladin]

Secondly, why would something create a moral obligation on us simply by being self-aware? Your premise, that it is based on empathy, falls short if one feels no empathy towards the subject. If it is shown that a murderer does not feel empathy towards the victim, then does it follow that he has no moral obligation towards him?

First, when I speak of humans as being social animals with a sense of empathy, I'm speaking broadly. The argument isn't demolished by the example of the occasional sociopath.

Second, there is the social contract to consider. I would protect others from being murdered or seek to punish murderers because I do not myself wish to be murdered.

---

The problem with that definition is that babies aren't sentient...unless you can recall being a newborn and being self-aware.

I think you're confusing memory with self-awareness. Babies certainly have all outward indications of being sentient. Lack of memory does not preclude sentience.

Additionally, if we accept determinism,

There's a big "IF". And a new can of worms I won't open right now.

Yet unborn children (in later developments) can feel pain.

Your use of the term "later developments" seems vague to me. Can you cite for me at roughly what week or trimester of development the unborn can feel pain? What research has shown this to be true?

Some on this forum have espoused the view that abortion should be legal up until birth; do you agree with that?

Under conditions where the mother's life is in serious jeopardy, yes. AFAIK, these are the laws on the books now. The ability to get an abortion legally in America today depends on the stage of the development of the fetus. You can't just walk into an abortion clinic in the 3rd trimester and say, "I've changed my mind. I want an abortion." These late term abortions are done only to save the life of the mother.

I think it is simpler than this; I think that we have moral obligations towards our own species, since we are a very social species.

I don't agree. Gratuitous cruelty to an animal is inhumane. Pulling the plug on a brain-dead coma patient is not.

Yet an embryo has something that other microscopic beings do not; human DNA.

Your point?

Skin cells in your nose contain your DNA. You're committing a minor holocaust every time you scratch your nose.

It makes no sense at all to support human rights for humans who happen to have been born, and disregard them for humans that have not yet been born.

How about the distinction that a embryo or fetus is not yet a sentient human and therefore has not yet warranted moral consideration? Seems a plainly drawn line to me.