Abortion is morally wrong

[Anomalocaris]

Whether he is using someone else's framework does not change the fact that he has the burden of proof to show the framework should be applicable in this instance to those who do not accept the general applicability of the framework.

Not pulling something out of his ass does not reduce his burden of proof. It only suggest there might be a proof already in existence which he could cite, instead of having to actually formulate a proof himself.

[Esquilax]

So are we pro choicers here now collectively saying that there is no objective morality?

I'm shocked here to see Esq waving that, when previously he's argued with me that it's always without exception wrong to kill babies (God > flood).

Why should a subjective view not have consistent points? All I was saying is that morality isn't external to human beings, derived from some other source; it's a product of our interactions and reactions to the reality in which we live, based upon analyses, evidence and a prioritizing of our own values, in the context of a consistently applied standard that would ensure the greatest positives, with the least number of negatives.

With regards to killing babies, the reason that this is immoral is that there's no benefit or point to it; it causes suffering (an automatic negative) without providing a balancing positive. Specifically, this is important within the context of the biblical flood, where the babies could not have been the problem that the flood was intent to solve, their killing could have been avoided without cost to the problem solver, and their killing did not resolve the problem anyway.

But that's kind of a divergence. My point is, don't mistake "subjective" for "completely up to individual opinion," or "incapable of having embedded absolutes." The only difference with an absolute in a subjective model is that it requires backing up.

[Arthur123]

Esquilax, as I have been arguing throughout this thread that in order to be consistent in attributing rights to human beings we must consider fetus' human. My argument is deductive argument and unless you can defeat one of the premises leading to the conclusion the conclusion can be said to be true.

Now lets address your argument, the crux of it, is that of intellectual brain states is the deciding factor in deciding human value. I say this is patently false, for one thing it shifts the idea of human value from intrinsic to extrinsic value which I believe is problematic. For example, coma patients who are not conscious, or baby born with defects have either no right to life or mitigated rights to life. Lets imagine a man whose consciousness shuts down every ten minutes during this time is it permissible to kill him? I would hope your answer would be surely not! Furthermore, since it is a part of a human it is as arbitrary as saying upright walking is the only factor that can deem right to life. Its an arbitrary reasoning through which the sufficient factors of being human are.

Furthermore, fetus did not choose to be there they were placed. The responsibility rests solely on the mother in the case of abortion. I responded to that nearly 20 pages ago. Furthermore, through abortion the fetus' rights is violated in the worst possible way. Death. And please don't assume what my thoughts on issues are, you can always just ask

Lisa, Im slightly confused. Can you restate your argument in a different way? I don't want to repeat myself and would much rather do your argument justice

Kindest regards,

[GrandizerII]

I disagree that death is the worst possible way.

[Ravenshire]

Keep right on ignoring the other points made against your "argument" Arty. It's what you christers do best!

You really believe the worst thing that can happen to someone is dying?!? Wow!

[JuliaL]

Esquilax, as I have been arguing throughout this thread that in order to be consistent in attributing rights to human beings we must consider fetus' human. My argument is deductive argument and unless you can defeat one of the premises leading to the conclusion the conclusion can be said to be true.

Your second premise: A fetus is an innocent human being and your original OP

a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception

show unreasonable redefinitions of the terms 'human being' and 'fetus'.
A fertilized egg is not a fetus. An unborn human only becomes a fetus after recognizable major structures have developed. You're using the term incorrectly.
You unreasonably extend the status of human being to a fertilized egg in opposition to commonly accepted definitions of what a human being is.
You do not show reason that human being status should not be extended to cloned pluripotential cells or blastula cells capable of development into adult human beings.

Your argument is defeated.

[Arthur123]

Julia I have been arguing that you must put fetus' into the category of human beings because it is the only consistent application of the definitional, and organizational concept of human beings. As for your rebut, I believe I responded to that here:


Julia, thanks so much for joining the discussion! I believe there is an inherent difference between a zygote and a toenail cell. One is a part of a human being while the other is an actual human being. As Dr. Dianne Irving puts it, "the issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings - they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would simply rot. They would not grow as human embryos or human fetuses who are human beings."

And Dr. C. Ward Fisher, "Let’s frame the issue: in human sexual reproduction, when conception [or fertilization] occurs
the continuum of life is initiated. There must be a moment of time at which the time continuum of life begins.
For all these reasons among others, I believe the strength of my argument stands...Biologically, then,first contact
is the event from which all else will follow. There is no point beyond that at which development is suspended or held in abeyance." Stated similarly in Alexander Prus' metaphysical principle, if an organism who once existed has never died than this organism still exists. There i biological continuity between me and my fetus and since I am a human it follows that so is a fetus. This genetically complete, whole, human organism directing its own growth and genetic future in an unbreaking chain of growth is nothing like that of a toenail cell that can be harnessed and experimented with to clone a human being. My definition does not rest on potentialities but actualities and ontology.

---

By the way, I just want to thank everyone for their responses even though I am a Christian and believe differently from most of you for the most part I have been treated kindly and with respect

[JuliaL]

Julia I have been arguing that you must put fetus' into the category of human beings because it is the only consistent application of the definitional, and organizational concept of human beings.

Thank you for responding. I can now stop yelling at my monitor.

I have been arguing that your application of the terms 'fetus and 'human being' are in opposition to commonly accepted definitions of the terms whatever you may think is the 'only consistent application' of these concepts. If you are arguing only your personal mind on the topic, we will simply agree to disagree.

As Dr. Dianne Irving puts it, "the issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings - they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would simply rot. They would not grow as human embryos or human fetuses who are human beings."

But my counter examples (cloned stem cell or split blastula cell) would not 'simply rot.' They would develop into adult humans just as would a fertilized egg. They are functionally equivalent to the fertilized egg. For your position to be consistent, you must show why they should not be granted the same 'human being' status you want for the egg.

And Dr. C. Ward Fisher, "Let’s frame the issue: in human sexual reproduction, when conception [or fertilization] occurs
the continuum of life is initiated.

To the best of current knowledge, the continuum of life was only initiated one time something around 3.5 billion years ago.

[Brian37]

His entire argument is the same, "I don't like it and since I don't like it everyone else is wrong"

[Ravenshire]

for the most part I have been treated kindly and with respect

Too bad you haven't returned that respect.