Yes, I would object to forcing a doctor to remove it. If it is against the moral values of the doctor, the doctor shouldn't be forced to do it. — Agustino

And if the doctor had no issues with the removal, that would be fine?

Outside of self defense, for example, a religion has no legal standing in the USA to physically harm an LGBT person, for example. — Brian

Sure.

And if the doctor had no issues with the removal, that would be fine? — Banno

Morally speaking no, because he would be harming a human being. But if there are people around the world who want to live in such barbaric societies, who can stop them?

In a civilised society, most doctors would refuse to perform abortion services.

Nope. — Agustino

As far as I'm concerned rights do not exist. Talking about a "right to marry" is nonsense. There's no such right for anyone. If a priest refuses me to marry the woman I love, then he hasn't wronged me, because I don't have a "right to marry" in the first place. I will go look for another priest. But what I will not do is violently protest like a snowflake liberal about how oppressed I am...

As far as I'm concerned rights do not exist. — Agustino

So a religious (or nonreligious) person doesn't have the right to freedom of expression? And a foetus doesn't have the right to live?

So a religious (or nonreligious) person doesn't have the right to freedom of expression? — Michael

It's not a question of rights, it's a question of what's legally and morally permissible. It's not morally or legally permissible to use force to stop someone's expression. But there's no "rights" in there. Rights are fictions.

Natural law - and social law - aren't fictions, but these have to do with what actions are morally (or legally) permissible, not with what "rights" someone has.

So your contention is that a blastocyst is a human being.

I think that quite absurd.

and your point here is, as I understand you, that there is no way to reconcile our two positions?

It's not a question of rights, it's a question of what's legally and morally permissible. It's not morally or legally permissible to use force to stop someone's expression. But there's no "rights" in there. Rights are fictions. — Agustino

What's the difference between saying that it is morally (or legally) impermissible for me to restrict your freedom of expression and saying that you have a right to freedom of expression? Seems like much the same thing to me.

and your point here is, as I understand you, that there is no way to reconcile our two positions? — Banno

In what sense is there no way to reconcile the two positions?

So your contention is that a blastocyst is a human being. — Banno

Absolutely, just like an egg that has started to develop is a chicken.

What's the difference between saying that it is morally (or legally) impermissible for me to restrict your freedom of expression and saying that you have a right to freedom of expression? Seems like much the same thing to me. — Michael

Saying that I have a right gives the impression that I am entitled to it. But I'm not entitled to anything. In this day and age all the leftists and liberals behave as if they're entitled to everything. That's outrageous.

But I'm not entitled to anything. In this day and age all the leftists and liberals behave as if they're entitled to everything. — Agustino

So you're not entitled to freedom of expression but it's wrong for me to restrict your freedom? Again, I fail to see the difference.

So you're not entitled to freedom of expression but it's wrong for me to restrict your freedom? Again, I fail to see the difference. — Michael

Yes that's exactly right. The difference between the two is that one case speaks of what's moral and immoral without making me entitled to something, while the other says that I'm entitled to have you behave morally to me, which is false. You should behave morally to me, but I'm not entitled to it.

In what sense is there no way to reconcile the two positions? — Agustino

The reason I'm asking this @Banno is because I want to know if you're talking legally reconciled? Morally? Or in what manner.

You're just repeating that there's a difference, not explaining what that difference is. To me, there's no difference in saying that it is wrong to restrict someone's freedom of expression and saying that someone is entitled to freedom of expression.

not explaining what that difference is — Michael

Then what is this below? :s

The difference between the two is that one case speaks of what's moral and immoral without making me entitled to something, while the other says that I'm entitled to have you behave morally to me, which is false. You should behave morally to me, but I'm not entitled to it. — Agustino

A repetition of the claim that they're different. But as I understand it, to say that I am entitled to not be punched by you is just to say that it is wrong for you to punch me.

You should behave morally to me — Agustino

That's redundant. It's like saying that it's a crime to break the law.

But as I understand, to say that I am entitled to not be punched by you is just to say that it is wrong for you to punch me. — Michael

No it's not. It's to say that I must behave morally to you, which is false. I should behave morally to you, but that's not a MUST (or an entitlement).

In what sense is there no way to reconcile the two positions? — Agustino

Well, that's what I understood you to be claiming. If I am wrong, let me know.

We appear to broadly agree on our moral framework. Where we differ is that what you claim is a human being is what I say is a bunch of cells.

The difference is not moral, but about what counts as a human.

Is it possible to reach some sort of agreement?

Absolutely, just like an egg that has started to develop is a chicken. — Agustino

That view is wide open to debate. I had a fried egg for breakfast, not a fried chicken.

The difference is not moral, but about what counts as a human. — Banno

Anything that is in the process of developing into a fully grown human being if there is no external interference (blastocyst, baby, child, teenager, etc.), and any person who is actually an adult or old woman/man.

That view is wide open to debate. I had a fried egg for breakfast, not a fried chicken. — Banno

Linguistics. Yes, we linguistically distinguish between different stages of what a chicken is, but fact of the matter is that the egg is a necessary part of the life stages of a chicken. Why do we distinguish linguistically? Oh well, because, for one, you can do different things with an egg than you can with a fully grown chicken. But this isn't to say they're not both two different stages of the same life.

Anything that is in the process of developing into a fully grown human being if there is no external interference (blastocyst, baby, child, teenager, etc.), and any person who is actually an adult or old woman/man. — Agustino

Should we go into this? Your definition is dreadful.

With no external interference the blastocyst will die. It is parasitic on the woman.

I had a fried egg, not a fried chicken.

With no external interference the blastocyst will die. It is parasitic on the woman. — Banno

:s - that's not external intervention. It happens naturally. If the woman goes on living and eating naturally, the blastocyst develops.

I had a fried egg, not a fried chicken. — Banno

Yep so?

I have no great interest in the abortion debate; nor in the philosophical yoga you need in order to support a position you inherited from your religion.

We appear to broadly agree on our moral framework. Where we differ is that what you claim is a human being is what I say is a bunch of cells.

The difference is not moral, but about what counts as a human.

Is it possible to reach some sort of agreement? — Banno

What is interesting is how do you see rational discussion, and if you think it possible for people of good will to reach considered detente on moral issues.

I have no great interest in the abortion debate; nor in the philosophical yoga you need in order to support a position you inherited from your religion. — Banno

:s There's no philosophical yoga. It's an absolutely natural position. You need philosophical yoga to assert that a blastocyst - if left alone - doesn't develop into a fully grown human being. Now everyone understands what left alone means. It means you don't purposefully interfere with its development. And now you claim that it is parasitic on the woman's body - so what? If left alone, will it develop in a fully grown human being? Yes! A blastocyst is a necessary stage in the lifecycle of a human being.

With regards to the chicken and the egg, you can state whatever the hell you want regarding eating a fried egg, not a fried chicken, that doesn't change the underlying reality. The word "egg" refers to a stage in the lifecycle of a chicken (general term here to denote a particular form of life with all its stages). The word "chicken" (particular sense here) refers to a specific stage in the lifecycle of a chicken. Now you prefer to remain trapped in linguistics and give me a lecture about how we use language, but I'm not interested. I already explained why we use language that way, and why using language that way doesn't take away from the fact that the egg and the chicken are both different stages of the same life.

Is it possible to reach some sort of agreement? — Banno

Morally speaking it seems like no, because it appears you don't respect human life, because you have no respect for some necessary stages of that life.

Legally speaking, we may reach some sort of agreement.

There's no philosophical yoga. It's an absolutely natural position. — Agustino

This made me laugh.

So would that legal agreement be that you would refrain from attempting to coerce those who seek abortions, and those who are willing to perform abortions?