It's the will of the people.

SO what's that telling us? :joke: — Banno

That you're all just not reading properly, of course. :razz:

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

If I get the facts wrong, I'll get the wrong results, even if I apply the correct moral rules. If biology was irrelevant, it wouldn't make sense to draw the line at the second trimester (or anywhere, for that matter) either.

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

I consider abortion for any reason moral until the pregnancy is so far along that the foetus would stand a decent (let's say higher than 50%) chance at survival if born. After that, I think it would only be moral if conditions are fairly dire, like a significant health risk (including certain psychological risks). I am not sure how to consider genetic defects. I am personally hoping I never have to make that kind of decision.

It's the will of the people. — frank

A facile, disingenuous, dishonest, and ultimately inaccurate answer. Do better!

In fact, do a better job of reading the question:

Exactly why should abortion be subject to any law? — tim wood

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. — Banno

That's not what I said. In fact, I haven't provided a definition for being human, but there isn't really a substantial difference between what you and I have said about being human.

You said it has sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality, and I have said that they (transgressors) have difficulty seeing the rights of the unborn as a living human, because they cannot observe its face, see that it hears sounds and responds to external stimuli. It is only said to show that the transgressor justifies his immorality by refusing to recognise the unborn as a living person.

I have also shown consideration for human life being aware of its life in various stages (eg to speak of sperm and eggs, and blood cells, as having moral rights), where those expressions of life don't have faces or ears to hear with. It is because of that fact, you are wrong to say that what I have said is a definition of human life.

Do you know why you chose to take what I said and misuse it, by saying it is my definition of human life, when it isn't?

Where moral law is defined by the principle "do unto others as you would have them do to you", and when there is no objective judge, the transgressors are the judge of the morality of their own decisions. Therefore in order to do unto others what they would not have done to themselves, they need to see their victim as being inferior to theirself.

I said that they find it easy to identify a fetus as inferior to themselves because they don't see its face, they don't see that it hears sounds and responds to external stimuli.

I also said that parents who are in a bad mood do the same to children, because when, as a third party, I see the anguish in the face of the children when the parents are doing such cruelty, it is clear that the parents are not seeing it.

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

What you are judging me by is an imagined character. You are not, in fact judging me by what I do. In order to be effective in judgement, you must judge by what I do. Then, and only then, will I as a judge, be capable of accepting your judgement.

Do you think the bible is the source of our morals? — Banno

That statement shows that you do not understand morality, and assumes that you think I have made an idol of the bible - as the imagined character that you think I am, would do.

No, I do not think the bible is a source of morality. It is a potential source of education. It is through learning about the human problem from the words of a teacher who can lead us to grow beyond it, that moral justification can be found. But moral justification is only found as a result of acting in love.

If a person acts in love, he does no harm to a neighbour - therefore he does not come under the judgement of morality.

The bible is able to teach us how to identify sin in our life, so that repenting of sin releases us into the freedom of justification according to truth, where love abounds simply as a result of being a human not doing sin. But, also the bible is no guarantee of producing that result, because a student cannot be greater than his teacher - and I have not yet found a translator that has escaped non-biblical indoctrination, so as a result, I notice in every translation a tendency toward doctrinal error in their interpretation of the bible and their subsequent explanation of it to the reader in the new language.

So, basically, the Bible's authors were on to something valuable, but to grasp that value is not as simple as reading the bible - it is only by tapping into that same thing that they had found (John 5:39-40).

It requires substantial effort on the part of the mother and her support folk in order to reach birth; and thereafter more effort is required for it to reach maturity. — Banno

Usually the mother will give birth to the baby unless she does something actively to abort it or it gets aborted by itself. Do you think she can just decide not to make the effort and then it will not be born? What are abortion clinics for then?

Granted, after the child is born it takes an effort to keep it alive. Does that mean it’s permissible to let it die? The newborn infant is not yet a person – it’s not a self-conscious rational thing. It’s only a potential.

imagine disk drive containing all the information to run this forum. It has the potential to become the forum. But of course, much more is needed — Banno

Your disk drive needs something added to it in a very different sense. The forum consists of the disk drive, a computer, different components, the internet, posts etc. A person doesn’t consist of a fetus, an infant, food, care, sleep, warm clothes etc.

how would you balance the real, undeniable personhood of the mother against the mere potential of the foetus? — Banno

What balance is there to make? The personhood of the mother is not threatened. If you let both live, both personhoods are secured. Of course, it is a different matter if the mother’s life is at risk. Then you need to sacrifice the one for the other. The emotionally natural thing to do would of course be to let the mother live, but not because the fetus is merely a potential. You already know the mother, and anyone would sacrifice a stranger for someone known.

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? — Banno

Should I contact the mods or police because you think it is ok to terminate sentient human life? It's strange that you see that as a threat rather than me pointing out another one of your inconsistencies, when I'm the one arguing that we shouldnt terminate sentient life. It was a question, not a statement, and therefore not a threat, for you to clarify your own position, but you'd rather engage in ad hominem trollong. That's too bad.

It's the will of the people.
— frank
A facile, disingenuous, dishonest, and ultimately inaccurate answer. Do better!

In fact, do a better job of reading the question:
Exactly why should abortion be subject to any law?
— tim wood — tim wood

Tim. What are you drinking?

Tim. What are you drinking? — frank

I take it you neither know why abortion should be subject to law nor have any ideas about it.
As to "will of the people," at best that's advisory.

If I get the facts wrong, I'll get the wrong results, even if I apply the correct moral rules. If biology was irrelevant, it wouldn't make sense to draw the line at the second trimester (or anywhere, for that matter) either. — Echarmion

Sure. It's the decides that is problematic. Descriptions are a different animal to prescriptions.

As for the rest, that's pretty much my opinion.

take it you neither know why abortion should be subject to law nor have any ideas about it.
As to "will of the people," at best that's advisory. — tim wood

Ok. I dont know what you're driving at, and you're not inviting me to care.

It is only said to show that the transgressor justifies his immorality by refusing to recognise the unborn as a living person. — Serving Zion

That's because not all unborn are living persons. A blastocyst lacks sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality; it is not a person. Over time, and with considerable support, it might become a person. But it isn't there yet.

I have also shown consideration for human life being aware of its life in various stages (eg to speak of sperm and eggs, and blood cells, as having moral rights), where those expressions of life don't have faces or ears to hear with. It is because of that fact, you are wrong to say that what I have said is a definition of human life. — Serving Zion

A person has moral standing because they have sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. Blood cells do not have sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality; hence they have no moral standing.

SO the question to you is when do we assign moral standing? You assign it to blood cells; would you assign it to skin cells? Carcinomas? Nasal Mucus? Each contains living human cells.

And the philosophical point here is to question the coherence of your assignments of moral standing.

That's because not all unborn are living persons. — Banno

To say "that's because", is circular reasoning.

A blastocyst lacks sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality; — Banno

I don't agree with this. I only agree that you don't see it.

it is not a person. Over time, and with considerable support, it might become a person. But it isn't there yet. — Banno

Now, to use the word "person" as the qualifier for moral consideration, is shifting the goalposts again. I am saying any self-aware living entity has a right to resent unfair treatment, hence they have rights in moral consideration.

The word "person" is the root of the word "personality" - meaning that it is a type of life that expresses a character of individual personality - so that would most likely exclude plants (only because a personality is difficult to detect without animation). But I have also mentioned that I do recognise the moral rights of plants.

A person has moral standing because they have sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. — Banno

I disagree with this. A person has moral standing because the one judging his rights gives recognition to those rights. As I said, the best definition is found where a living entity has been transgressed so that he has a valid cause to complain "he did to me what he would not have done to himself".

Blood cells do not have sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality; hence they have no moral standing. — Banno

You are wrong to say that.

SO the question to you is when do we assign moral standing? — Banno

I am most interested to answer that question well. I need a bit more information from you before I can do that:

You assign it to blood cells; would you assign it to skin cells? Carcinomas? Nasal Mucus? Each contains living human cells. — Banno

Could you please show me proof of the claims "skin cells, carcinomas and nasal mucus contain living human cells".

And the philosophical point here is to question the coherence of your assignments of moral standing. — Banno

A living entity does not want to die, it wants to thrive. When a living entity has its life taken from it, it therefore loses a thing that it valued. It also may suffer in the process.

Morality is a law that prescribes how a judgement should be made for or against the complaint. The Golden Rule of morality is defined simply as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Therefore, when making a moral judgement about the suffering inflicted by one upon another, the judgement must consider "would the one inflicting the suffering complain or not, if the roles were reversed?" - and in so doing, objectively and without favouritism, morality proves whether an action is moral or immoral.

Ok. I dont know what you're driving at, and you're not inviting me to care. — frank

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

"Legal abortion." It's a fair question as to why (exactly) abortion should be subject to law. The "exactly" is deliberate, to get you or anyone else to think before they write, but that does not appear to be working. Care to try thinking about it?

"do unto others as you would have them do to you" — Serving Zion

This can be no more than a rule of thumb. It's too easy to bend it into a reason for mistreating others. "If I were disables, I would like to die; therefore it is OK for me to kill the disabled..."

But moral justification is only found as a result of acting in love. — Serving Zion

Love will not suffice. Much the is immoral is done in the name of love. It is acts that bring about the growth of a person into their potential that are moral.

You are not, in fact judging me by what I do. In order to be effective in judgement, you must judge by what I do. Then, and only then, will I as a judge, be capable of accepting your judgement. — Serving Zion

Thing is, what you write is a part of what you do. So if your writing is misogynist...

What I found offensive in your writing is your prescribing a social role to women on the basis of their gender; that a good woman is one who has babies and loves them. That view denies the freedom of women to become who they will, consigning them to a role determined by their gender. It denies the sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality of women, and hence is immoral.

But one one thing we seem to agree: it is actions that count.

If a person acts in love, he does no harm to a neighbour - therefore he does not come under the judgement of morality. — Serving Zion

Hollis Brown acted out of love for his family. Love will not suffice.

The bible is able to teach us how to identify sin in our life... — Serving Zion

The bible is a poor source for moral teaching. The commandments are a case in point. I've presented other examples elsewhere. There are much better sources of moral guidance - even Kant is to be prefered!

To say "that's because", is circular reasoning. — Serving Zion

Go on then, set out the circularity exactly.

A blastocyst lacks sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality;
— Banno

I don't agree with this. I only agree that you don't see it. — Serving Zion

It doesn't made a difference if you agree or disagree; a blastocyst does not have the characteristics of a person.

Go on then, set out the circularity exactly. — Banno

You are hard work, Banno. And you aren't making it worth my while!

Now, to use the word "person" as the qualifier for moral consideration, is shifting the goalposts again. I am saying any self-aware living entity has a right to resent unfair treatment, hence they have rights in moral consideration. — Serving Zion

I didn't shift the goal posts - you just happened to notice where they were. SO good for you. I've tried to use "person" consitently to denote an individual with sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality; as distinct from merely human, a characteristic of blood cells and snot. THat's been quite intentional, since it appears to me that you confuser the two.

SO, not all human tissue is a person.

You are hard work, Banno. And you aren't making it worth my while! — Serving Zion

Cheers. Perhaps now you are beginning to see that philosophy is hard. Theology is a walk in the park by comparison.

Keep thinking, keep responding. You might learn something. As might I.

The word "person" is the root of the word "personality" - meaning that it is a type of life that expresses a character of individual personality - so that would most likely exclude plants. But I have also mentioned that I do recognise the moral rights of plants. — Serving Zion

Plants have moral standing in so far as they have potential for growth in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. Which is not so much.

A foetus - or even a blastocyst - has moral standing int he same way.

But in the case of a pregnancy, that standing is to be held against atet of the mother and the community into which the potential child will be born.

And the rights the mother to sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality, far outweigh those of the foetus.

Hence, it is the mother who must have the say as to the continuation or termination of the pregnancy.

It's a fair question as to why (exactly) abortion should be subject to law. — tim wood

It is a good question. But is it so different to why any act might be subject to law? We set out explicitly what is acceptable and what is not; we set out explicitly the consequences for some our actions; and hence we have the rule of law, and can use it to oppose arbitrary decisions.

I'm the one arguing that we shouldnt terminate sentient life. — Harry Hindu

You aren't, though. Your argument has the usual inconsistency and incompleteness - the same fault that others have pointed out many times.

Try setting out what you are thinking in a clear fashion.

My general rule is that if something doe not meet some criteria of exactitude, then it is almost certainly not what anyone thinks it is. For example, you want something but can't say exactly what. It becomes then very nearly a certainly that you are not going to get exactly what you wanted.

We set out explicitly — Banno

Yes, this, exactly. Pro-lifers skate around this. @frank is in favor of "legal abortion" under certain conditions,but is apparently incapable of saying why it should be subject to law in the first place.

you want something but can't say exactly what. It becomes then very nearly a certainly that you are not going to get exactly what you wanted. — tim wood

Perhaps; I'd say that if you want something but can't say exactly what, then there is not a something that is exactly what you want.

That is, you will not get exactly what you want because what you want is not exact.

...but is apparently incapable of saying why it should be subject to law in the first place. — tim wood

We'll need to leave that to @frank.

but is apparently incapable of saying why it should be subject to law in the first place.
— tim wood

We'll need to leave that to frank. — Banno

Yeah, it's the will of the people. What else?

it's the will of the people. — frank

That's no more than a convenient myth.

it's the will of the people.
— frank

That's no more than a convenient myth. — Banno

Wooow, Mr. Pessimism.

It's the will of the people.
— frank

A facile, disingenuous, dishonest, and ultimately inaccurate answer. Do better!
In fact, do a better job of reading the question:
Exactly why should abortion be subject to any law? — tim wood

Yeah, it's the will of the people. What else? — frank

As to "will of the people," at best that's advisory. — tim wood

Broken record? Or broken frank? You're being paid the respect of having your thoughts requested. But I'm wondering if you have any, or are capable of. Show us you can do it!

That would imply people who have a terminal illness are less valuable — Echarmion

Exactly, it does imply that. Terminally ill people are less valuable because they don’t have any potential. If you were forced two kill one person, either one who only had an hour left live anyway or one who might have years ahead of him, I don’t doubt that you would kill the former. We value things for their potential more than for what they are at the moment. Would you pay a lot of money for something you knew would disappear tomorrow? Even our own lives are only valuable only because they have potential – because we expect to be alive tomorrow.

Your life has value as a specific potential, that is as the continuation of what is now you.

Things that have the potential of being valuable should be preserved. (because we want what is valuable, “valuable” means that we want it)
A person is already a thing and has the potential of being a person in the future, so it should therefore be preserved. (if you value persons)
A fetus is already a thing and has the potential of being a person in the future, so it should therefore be preserved. (if you value persons)
An egg and a sperm that are not combined are not a thing.

A thing that has potential is a thing that now exists, and has in itself, through continued existence, the potential of becoming a similar or a different thing. Any combination of elements that might be brought about in the future, is not a thing now.

It’s not a matter of potentiality as such, but of things that have potential.