Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[Edwardo Piet]

Advocating it? No... I think it is brutal, and that it is a massive waste of 9 months of pregnancy. I do not, however, see how it is ethically wrong.

Well - once it is no longer a foetus I would think it would be ethically wrong to end the newly born baby's life for the same reason(s) as it would be to end mine. I would have thought it would be obvious.

Morality is subjective obviously.

Not dependent? It needs the diaper change, the milk, the shelter, the time and money of a person that they might not have. Nothing magical ever happens... and although i think adoption or the like might be a better use of resources: killing the thing after it is born is not unethical.

(my bolding)

I just don't know how to debate with that. I would have thought it would be obvious to anyone that a newborn baby and a foetus are two different things...

I was debating about the closer a foetus gets to a baby - I thought that it would be obvious that it's unethical to kill a newborn baby that isn't even a foetus at all highly developed or otherwise.

What gives a baby value is the amount of time and effort another person has put into having that baby.

It's a newly born living breathing human being, not an object.

Without that value... why should it live except for a socialistic system willing to take it instead?

It has emotions. It's not an (unliving) object.

I do not see either option as factually retarded. Rather, I see killing a baby as an economical burden lifted...

Yeah right, who cares about the baby(?!) Babies and foetuses are exactly the same thing after all(!) The only factor here is the burden to the parents(!)

How old does the baby have to get before you consider it unjust to kill it I wonder...

I say that there is no "cut off point"... and rather there is an individually decided concept of when a thing begins to develop 'right' of its own

No cut off point? But if you not only treat late and early developed foetuses are the same - but you also see nothing ethically wrong about killing newborn babies. Then see this point that I made above:

How old does the baby have to get before you consider it unjust to kill it I wonder...

A year old? 2 years old? 3 years old? a teenager? An Adult? Ever?

Seems kind of mad to me.

I disagree with it being 'obviously wrong'. Nothing about pregnancy is harmless. It is not a fetus that killing would be immoral (unless the person values it, and you value it because of their value of it)

How do you come to that conclusion? The mother is obviously the priority but how do you judge that aborting a foetus is never harmful at all? How do you judge that it cannot feel pain at more developed stages? How is causing suffering to anything at all ever "harmless"?

... nor a baby.

And how on earth do you come to that conclusion? Killing a baby that has been born is harmless? How are you defining harm? Does harm only apply to adults or babies that have at least got to toddler stage or something? I don't get that.

Surely any living thing that can feel pain can be "harmed".

Nor necessarily a full grown adult. It is simply killing... nothing necessarily immoral about it

---

So only adult humans can experience suffering or truly be "harmed" according to you?

That is likely why Meatball said,

Laws shouldn't enforce morality, they should protect rights and freedoms. Big difference.

That a thing does or does not is independent of wether a thing should or should not

My point is that some laws are ethically based and not just about freedoms. You're not necessarily restricting freedoms or rights to any other member of society when you are cruel to animals, but it's still illegal - and for good reason in my mind.

Non-human animals aren't considered members of society? :S My pet dog is a member of my society

First I knew of it. I thought only humans were officially listed as "people", as members of society, by society.

Also... how is torturing animals necessarily unethical?

Because torture is unethical. If it didn't hurt them then it wouldn't (or shouldn't) count as "torture" and if it hurts them then it's unethical and cruel to go around hurting anything for no good reason - I thought that would be obvious.

I think it is illegal because a few people made emotional arguments in court and managed to pass laws into place. :Sleepy:

And I would think that these emotional arguments might be based off the fact that at least some people believe that (at least some other) animals can feel pain and so it's wrong to torture them.

And why is it not? A poor man is less able to buy out a country than a rich man... should he get fewer rights because he is less able to do a thing? WHy deny things rights because they are different? "Too different" seems very subjective to me...

I don't know what this had to do with my point about invertebrates. I never suggested to "deny things because they're different".

And of course it's subjective, I'm talking morality here which is subjective.

EvF

[Violet]

Well - once it is no longer a foetus I would think it would be ethically wrong to end the newly born baby's life for the same reason(s) as it would be to end mine. I would have thought it would be obvious.

Morality is subjective obviously.

What reasons would it be 'wrong' to end yours then?

It is not so obvious that I see it

I completely agree with the bold, and as such am against most (all?) laws in place because of 'morality'.

Not dependent? It needs the diaper change, the milk, the shelter, the time and money of a person that they might not have. Nothing magical ever happens... and although i think adoption or the like might be a better use of resources: killing the thing after it is born is not unethical.

(my bolding)

I just don't know how to debate with that. I would have thought it would be obvious to anyone that a newborn baby and a foetus are two different things...

I was debating about the closer a foetus gets to a baby - I thought that it would be obvious that it's unethical to kill a newborn baby that isn't even a foetus at all highly developed or otherwise.

It is not so obvious to me: they are quite similar, as "pro-lifers" and their ilk seem obliged to incessantly remind us

It's a newly born living breathing human being, not an object.

News flash: Newly born, living, breathing human beings are objects. As are you. As am I.

Is that supposed to degrade us somehow? 0.o

It has emotions. It's not an (unliving) object.

And that should matter why?

Were you aware that cows have emotions? So do dogs... so do horses... maybe even fishes do (Though even having recently killed them by the thousands, I cannot tell if they do). I've even been told by some people that plants have emotions, though I doubt this to be the case.

Another news flash: We eat cows... we eat dogs... we eat horses... we eat fishes... we eat plants. We even eat each other in some cultures.

Ps: to eat something... it is usually preferable that it be dead first. And for it to be dead in a reasonable amount of time for you to eat it... it usually will be killed before you eat it.

Yeah right, who cares about the baby(?!)

Do I value it? Almost certainly not.

How can you care about something you don't value?

Babies and foetuses are exactly the same thing after all(!) The only factor here is the burden to the parents(!)

Not exactly the same thing... but little enough different that I should think you silly for saying one is okay to kill and the other not so much because of some divine birthright of value that I do not believe exists.

Oh, and one of the most important factors here is the burden to the parents. If we did not have orphanages and what have you: it might well be the only factor.

How old does the baby have to get before you consider it unjust to kill it I wonder...

Depends on the baby. If you recall: I don't value things much by how old they are. As for justice... I do not think it is very reasonable or wise to waste your resources for 9 months wrecking your body and to not gain anything from it. I am unlikely to assign any care to any being except for that which I have assigned simply by acknowledging its existence... children not unincluded.

No cut off point? But if you not only treat late and early developed foetuses are the same - but you also see nothing ethically wrong about killing newborn babies. Then see this point that I made above:

"How old does the baby have to get before you consider it unjust to kill it I wonder..."

A year old? 2 years old? 3 years old? a teenager? An Adult? Ever?

Seems kind of mad to me.

Why would there be a cut off point? That just sounds stupid to me. I think I made my point clear ages ago how I feel about age lines: They suck, and some women go to things like Botox™ for 'fixing' them.

I treat the thing the same as if it were anything at all: a factor to observe, and possibly manipulate... or if deemed necessary: annihilate All of us do this with everything we observe and deem worthy of notation.

To reiterate once more... I see nothing ethically wrong with killing (in and of itself) in the first place. We kill for so very many reasons... and although I think it is often brutal, unnecessary, and dangerous (sometimes so that one might 'lock up' the killer)... I hardly see it as necessarily unethical.

Also... I told you I have no cut off point. It is an individually decided factor assigned to a specific being... also known as value. This position shouldn't be hard to grasp really...

Finally: I might be a little 'mad' (more likely just eccentric)... but that doesn't weaken my points any

I disagree with it being 'obviously wrong'. Nothing about pregnancy is harmless. It is not a fetus that killing would be immoral (unless the person values it, and you value it because of their value of it)

How do you come to that conclusion? The mother is obviously the priority but how do you judge that aborting a foetus is never harmful at all? How do you judge that it cannot feel pain at more developed stages? How is causing suffering to anything at all ever "harmless"?

Surely any living thing that can feel pain can be "harmed".

Erhem: I stated the bold above... and I'm going to note the core modifying words with an underline, because I'm special. Then simply add the middle portion to modify the context of what this 'nothing' is associated with... and you have a clear sentence about my stance on pregnancy! I come to the conclusion that all of pregnancy is harmful because it is demonstrably so ^_^

By the way... why does it matter that the little human fetus can feel pain? It's going to die anyway... and I notice that they don't seem to care so much about the pain that is felt by our food when it is being... ah... 'processed'. Silly speciests... pain is for everyone v_v

Also I disagree that pain is harmful. Pain is very good for you, and you are lucky to have it. Imagine all those times you would have hurt yourself without realizing it otherwise v_v

Nor necessarily a full grown adult. It is simply killing... nothing necessarily immoral about it

So only adult humans can experience suffering or truly be "harmed" according to you?

Actually... my position (if you would be so kind to recognize it when it is clearly stated by me, if you would now notice the bolds) is that killing an adult human is not necessarily immoral.

My point is that some laws are ethically based and not just about freedoms. You're not necessarily restricting freedoms or rights to any other member of society when you are cruel to animals, but it's still illegal - and for good reason in my mind.

Ethically based laws include anti-felacio laws, anti-single sex marriage laws, Shiara law, and other such. It is illegal because those other animals are a part of the society. It is just speciesist to think otherwise...

First I knew of it. I thought only humans were officially listed as "people", as members of society, by society.

Under some definitions perhaps. Of course... many animals are people. In any event, we are all a part of a community, and it would do us no favors to not recognize non-humans as being a part of our community. Indeed... we rather rely on other animals in our society for many tasks... from helping us hunt ducks to feeding us to seeing/hearing for the blind/deaf.

Because torture is unethical. If it didn't hurt them then it wouldn't (or shouldn't) count as "torture" and if it hurts them then it's unethical and cruel to go around hurting anything for no good reason - I thought that would be obvious.

How and why is torture unethical?

It isn't unethical... cruel I agree with, but not unethical. It isn't obvious to me... again. v_v

And I would think that these emotional arguments might be based off the fact that at least some people believe that (at least some other) animals can feel pain and so it's wrong to torture them.

I don't think it is wrong to torture things because they feel pain... i mean seriously: isn't that the point of torture? v_v Emotional arguments are based off of whatever little thing will cause emotions to flood a mob and make them immune to rationally based arguments v_v

I don't know what this had to do with my point about invertebrates. I never suggested to "deny things because they're different".

And of course it's subjective, I'm talking morality here which is subjective.

Erhem:

Torturing invertebrates doesn't count, that isn't illegal. That's because they are considered less close to human or less able to experience pain or suffer or whatever - so you see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

In fewer words: 'different'.

We are talking about morality here, and I make a counter argument to some commonly claimed morals... and morality is thrown against me with words such as "obvious" precluding it.

[KichigaiNeko]

For thread clarity I offer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perce...aranormal)

Could be determined a bit on the religious side of the line.

http://www.skepdic.com/plants.html

The skeptics viewpoint

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/19...22303.html

The scientific viewpoint


All statements to the effect is that the hypothesis of communications and feelings of other life forms (loosely including the foetus in this) is still moot.

Saerules: "We eat cows... we eat dogs... we eat horses... we eat fishes... we eat plants. We even eat each other in some cultures."

Offering the above in support of Sae's viewpoint.

I am of the opinion that as far as the science on emotions, perceptions, feelings is concerned...we 'Just don't know enough'

[Violet]

Hmm... even a nervous system to the effect that a plant might feel pain would still apply to a point often made about aborting (that the fetus or what have you can feel pain). Thank you for linking those pages, KichigaiNeko

'Just don't know enough'

The question then rather becomes "How much would be enough?" ^_^

I think we know enough on the subject to make some loose preliminary judgements... but ultimately the debate of "what does a thing's ability to feel pain matter?" remains outside the bounds of any scientific evidence (though the question of "if ___ amount of ability to feel pain changes how we use it... then how much does ____ feel?" is directly affected by science) and is entirely philosophical as far as I see ^_^

[Dotard]

Did any ever answer the question "When does life begin?"

I'm of the belief life begins at arousal.

[tavarish]

Did any ever answer the question "When does life begin?"

I'm of the belief life begins at arousal.

And thus, we agree that just as God described, life truly begins at the boner. Amen.

[KichigaiNeko]

The question then rather becomes "How much would be enough?" ^_^

I think we know enough on the subject to make some loose preliminary judgements... but ultimately the debate of "what does a thing's ability to feel pain matter?" remains outside the bounds of any scientific evidence (though the question of "if ___ amount of ability to feel pain changes how we use it... then how much does ____ feel?" is directly affected by science) and is entirely philosophical as far as I see ^_^

My point...Sae.

To use the argument that the 'entity' / creature "feels pain" is ambiguous as the scientific evidence is not enough and the emotional evidence would include 'entities' such as plants or foetuses (or Rocks - for the geoscientists and Bacteria- for the microbiologists) is far too emotional and can extend to include all of creation to the point that humans would be unable to live or breathe sans violating the 'Thou shalt not kill' commandment or just the simple ethical premise of living a 'conscious life'

[Autumnlicious]

Because I got so mad and wrote up an enormous post detailing why Sae was wrong and got side tracked into defining the value of ALL currently thinking beings with respect to time, potential and resources, I cannot post it here without safely feeling it could get the appropriate trial by fire it deserves.

So instead, I challenge Sae and anyone else to chomp this thread: http://atheistforums.org/thread-3948-pos...l#pid75777

[Ashendant]

Ah the differences between "sentient,sapient" and "sentient,non-sapient" life how interesting, all-or-most animals are sentient, humans are the only sapient being, with a few claims that cetaceans might be sapient, and some of hose arguments hold ground.

So I'm going to comment that all sapient being should be respected as equals to humans(even if other examples are doubt, might as well say preparing for the future yes), sentient beings should be respected as being with emotions but not on the equal round as sapient beings, means that we can hunt and breed them for feeding, this only because it's necessary, with the ability to make meat in laboratory in the future(very-near future), this might kill the necessity to hunt and fish.
I said this to blow the argument that we are hypocrites for killing cows for food and not fetus and babies.

Now I'll explain my argument about abortion.

The fetus is a parasite if unwanted, i mean unwanted as in after serious ponderation, not some state-of-shock claims, a fetus is the beginning of a human being but is not a human being, some people might argue that we should kill the baby no matter what after it has been killed, others say that we should never touch a fetus, as it is a human being, and both claim there isn't a drawn line when it's human or not, or define lines by the wrong parameter(when the heart starts beating),I AGREE WITH NEITHER, there is in fact a clear line when a baby can be judged as a human or not, it's called the brain and when the first electric reactions start in it, this makes it a sapient being that should be respected, in two exceptions, the baby is going to have a serious disease or cripple that the parents can't deal with, and the mother is in danger, that is my opinion on abortion.

For someone else that doesn't know:
-Sentient-the ability to feel or perceive pain and pleasure.
-Sapient-the ability to think abstractly or have "Wisdom"

[Meatball]

Brain activity means sapience? You think a fetus is sapient as soon as it's first brain cell starts firing?

It deserves respect? What does that entail other than a right to a birth? Is it a person?

In your opinion, should a 'post-sapience abortions' be illegal? What should the punishment be?