I'm not attempting to make a point by it (isn't that interesting!). I am simply asking you to explain why you take the commandment that says "eating shellfish is detestable for you" and then say that it is a commandment of morality.

I was taking your post seriously; — Banno

That's a first. You typically take the less serious and more vague route when the questions get tough.

You often insult others that don't think the way you do and therefore don't treat others in a "dignified" manner. Why shouldn't you be aborted? You say sentience is a requirement, yet the second-trimester fetus has sentience. — Harry Hindu

That's a pretty pathetic pronouncement, even by your standards. You are not worth the effort, Harry. Especially as you pretty much agree with my stated position. — Banno

So I wouldn't be able to point to some post of yours where you don't treat another member in a dignified manner?

I don't know what you believe to say that I agree because you are typically contradictory. A fetus has sentience before the end of the second trimester, so maybe we should think about restricting abortions to the first trimester.

It also seems to me that we should be having a discussion about when minds arise in a brain, or what it means to have a mind. It's interesting so see how all of these "political" discussions are really all based in answers science can/could provide. In other words, these shouldn't be politically-based discussions.

Bringing these loaded and subjective terms like "dignity" and "privilege", that you are then unwilling to define after using them, into an objective discussion doesn't help either.

If you condemn a child to a life of unwanted unhappiness in this dreadful society, you are surely evil beyond serious belief, at least to those who know something about what happens to children.

If you condemn a child to a life of unwanted unhappiness in this dreadful society, you are surely evil beyond serious belief, at least to those who know something about what happens to children. — iolo

Yes, wholeheartedly I am agreeing. But, I am saying that the moral solution is not to kill the child as some sort of act of mercy, but to heal the parents who make the child's life misery. As I mentioned, the problem is systemic, and authorities being uneducated and ignorant of the causes, unable to discern right from wrong, thereby using their power to oppose true justice, are empowering the evil to thrive upon the world.

Yes, wholeheartedly I am agreeing. But, I am saying that the moral solution is not to kill the child as some sort of act of mercy, but to heal the parents who make the child's life misery. As I mentioned, the problem is systemic, and authorities being uneducated and ignorant of the causes, unable to discern right from wrong, thereby using their power to oppose true justice, are empowering the evil to thrive upon the world — Serving Zion

I think the problem is systemic in a wider sense: it is the economic system we live under that often makes abortion the kinder choice.

Eggs and sperm don’t have a potential for anything in particular. — Congau

What's potential, exactly? Some physical notion of cause and effect? A value judgement?

A fetus at its earliest stage already contains all the data of the fully developed human being. The potential is real and specific. — Congau

So does any given combination of sperm and egg.

If you think it’s wrong to murder people because you think they are valuable in themselves, it would also be wrong to kill potential people. — Congau

Can you demonstrate how this is supposed to follow?

Potentiality is no less valuable then actuality since what is actually existing also derives its value from its potential for continued existence. — Congau

That would imply people who have a terminal illness are less valuable. In fact, since all life is finite, it would imply that life has no value at all, since it ultimately has no potential for continued existence.

I appreciate this approach. Too many defend abortion by saying it's a matter of women's rights. That argument is similar to that of Southern slave owners who defended slavery by insisting it was a matter a state's rights.

If slavery is immoral, no one has a right to own another person. If abortion is immoral, no woman has a right to have one. — frank

How is the argument substantively similar? The mother is a person, and personal rights can conflict.

I appreciate this approach. Too many defend abortion by saying it's a matter of women's rights. That argument is similar to that of Southern slave owners who defended slavery by insisting it was a matter a state's rights.

If slavery is immoral, no one has a right to own another person. If abortion is immoral, no woman has a right to have one.
— frank

How is the argument substantively similar? The mother is a person, and personal rights can conflict. — Echarmion

The similarity is that Southern states were insisting on the right to engage in an activity that's immoral. Were they right to make that claim? (don't read any emotion into my question, I'm just asking).

The similarity is that Southern states were insisting on the right to engage in an activity that's immoral. Were they right to make that claim? (don't read any emotion into my question, I'm just asking). — frank

If it's immoral, then it follows that they weren't right. But it's not inconceivable that states rights might influence a question of morality. For example, it'd be difficult to establish some moral tax rate across all states, so that's a question where the individual decision of state legislators matters.

In the case of abortion, arguing that women are insisting on the right to engage in immoral behaviour is begging the question.

If it's immoral, then it follows that they weren't right. — Echarmion

If abortion is immoral, a woman doesn't have a right to one. The issue is not about rights. It's about morality.

If abortion is immoral, a woman doesn't have a right to one. The issue is not about rights. It's about morality. — frank

The term "right" isn't usually rigorously confined to positivist legal rights. There is a more general notion of "moral rights", as in basic human rights.

If abortion is immoral, what sort of right could a woman have to one?

If abortion is immoral, what sort of right could a woman have to one? — frank

It's not that you could have a right to an immoral behaviour. It's that a right you have might make an otherwise immoral behaviour moral under the circumstances.

It's not that you could have a right to an immoral behaviour. It's that a right you have might make an otherwise immoral behaviour moral under the circumstances. — Echarmion

:yikes:

Self Defense would be an easy example.

So aborting a pregnancy is immoral (in the same way homicide is), but under certain circumstances it's ok?

This is where you and I have fundamental difference in philosophy, — Serving Zion

Oh, yeah. I have presented grounds for personhood: sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. You have said being human is dependent on having a face, hear sounds, and reactions to environmental stimuli.

Your notion of being human could apply to a doll.

...you have believed me to be someone quite different from who I am, — Serving Zion

I based that belief on your misogynist writing. What else am I to judge you by, if not what you do?

I am simply asking you to explain why you take the commandment that says "eating shellfish is detestable for you" and then say that it is a commandment of morality. — Serving Zion

Logic for beginners. If the bible is the source of our morals, and it says very clearly that we ought not each shellfish, then we ought not eat shellfish.

If.

I do not think the bible is the source of our morals. Hence I am not bound by the syllogism. Do you think the bible is the source of our morals? If so, then you are bound by the syllogism, and ought not eat shellfish.

So aborting a pregnancy is immoral (in the same way homicide is), but under certain circumstances it's ok? — frank

Personally, I wouldn't structure it that way. In my mind, a single action, with a specific intent, can be moral or immoral. Generalizations like "Killing is immoral" are either simplifications (which isn't necessarily a problem) or begging the question (i.e. assuming specific circumstances or intentions). So I wouldn't say aborting a pregnancy is immoral, but exceptions exist, but if someone described their stance that way, I'd consider that a reasonable starting point.

Why shouldn't you be aborted? — Harry Hindu

It was this to which I was referring, Harry. Are you making a death threat? That's the pretty pathetic pronouncement. And it's not something I would do.

Should I contact the mods? Or the police?

I said: if abortion is immoral, a woman cant have the right to do it.

And you disagree with that because to you, morality is dynamic and resistant to generalization. Honestly, it sounds like you're a moral nihilist. Or relativist?

So, you would redo my statement as:

It's impossible to state as a general rule that x is immoral. Therefore, morality cant have any bearing on rights, civil or otherwise. Is that right?

Hmm. Looks like moral nihilism, rather than relativism.


A relativist might say something like "I think it right, you might not"; but @Echarmion seems to think it undecided, or undecidable.

I said: if abortion is immoral, a woman cant have the right to do it.

And you disagree with that because to you, morality is dynamic and resistant to generalization. Honestly, it sounds like you're a moral nihilist. Or relativist? — frank

Well for one I'd say we need to define what we mean by "right". If we mean a moral right the sentence is just redundant. If we mean a legal right it doesn't follow (immoral acts can be legal).

I don't see my stance at relativistic at all. You can assess the morality of acts, and that assessment is general. But of course the assessment depends on the circumstances.

So, you would redo my statement as:

It's impossible to state as a general rule that x is immoral. Therefore, morality cant have any bearing on rights, civil or otherwise. Is that right? — frank

I wouldn't say it can't have any bearing. Even if we're talking about legal rights, we'd consider morality when deciding on what those should be.

I guess we tried, but failed to understand one another. It happens.

relativist might say something like "I think it right, you might not"; but Echarmion seems to think it undecided, or undecidable. — Banno

I'm not sure. It defies pinning down, I got that at least.

There's a certain thinking that refuses to make a decision on moral grounds. Of course that means never making a decision.

Talking of pointing things down, I'm not sure of where you stand on abortion.

I'm in favor of legal abortion up to the end of the second trimester.

Much the same as me.

I have this weird sense of deja vu. Didn't we have a similar situation a while back, where my stance was confusing to you both?

Anyways, to clarify I don't think you can't make statements like "abortion is moral up to the end of the second trimester". It's perfectly plausible that, to that point, there'd be no normal circumstances that could possibly make the abortion immoral. I am not up to date on the biology, but I probably agree with you.

I just think where you draw the line is a question of how you value the interests of the foetus compared to those of the mother. You can't simply say "but the foetus is a potential human" or "it's the mother's bodily autonomy" and be done with it. And there'll always be circumstances (like rape, or medical risks) that can shift the line.

where my stance was confusing to you both? — Echarmion

SO what's that telling us? :joke:

I am not up to date on the biology, — Echarmion

It's biology that decides moral issues? Nah. Naturalistic fallacy.

I just think where you draw the line is a question of how you value the interests of the foetus compared to those of the mother. — Echarmion

Yep. So, how do you value the interests of the foetus compared to those of the mother? Make a choice.

Why should abortion be subject to any law? Hmm. The question in that form will not be understood. Please allow me to try again with this: Exactly why should abortion be subject to any law?