Of course, yes, and by participating in the abortion thread you are showing where your focus is, or is that not the case?
Just to be clear, Im being sincere and not trying to trap you or use your words against you. Your perspective interests me and it seems youve put some thought into its consistency, so Im inquiring in good faith. (Which is not to say I wont disagree at some point)

I see more what you're saying. Yes I agree that if people value fetuses they should value the children they become,

Of course, yes, and by participating in the abortion thread you are showing where your focus is, or is that not the case? — DingoJones

Sure.

Ok, so Im just wondering why you are not more focused on the greater loss of life of bacteria or plants. You implied it has to do with them not being eligible for moral judgement while in the case of abortion you can do so with the mother at least. Is that right?

I might just be biased towards human tragedy. If someone were to advocate planting saplings and cutting them down because their leaves may fall onto their lawn I'd be focused on that too. I can't perceive microbial life, though, so focusing too much on that seems unproductive.

You implied it has to do with them not being eligible for moral judgement while in the case of abortion you can do so with the mother at least. Is that right? — DingoJones

I may have implied this?

Humans possess a unique reasoning faculty, which I think is required for something to be considered a moral agent.

Ok, so the distinction is moral agency.
Ok, so back to all loss of life being tragic. Why is that? If its a part of life as you say, then its not under the province of moral agency is it?

I can't give you a conclusive answer to that. In myself, and almost every living thing I meet, I observe a strong affinity with life. Any attempts to quantify that objectively would be futile. It is an intuition.

Life and death are natural, and on their own neither moral nor immoral. Perhaps it would be better to say all premature death is tragic. But then again, when an elder dies naturally of old age it may cause grief in their relatives, and is that not tragic?

The matter of morality, at least, becomes more clear when a human decides to voluntarily end life prematurely, whether that be by stomping on a bug that did them no harm, or chopping down a tree for no reason, or killing an unwanted fetus.

In the case of voluntary intercourse by individuals aware of the possible consequences:
Killing a living being is a tragic matter.
So,
Needlessly putting oneself in a situation where one may have to kill a living being is immoral. — Tzeentch

Two points. I'm interested in your grounds for this argument, and I'd like to see you shed the moral appeal. The latter is a form of should-argument. I'm not such much opposed to such as I think they're problematic and need to be made explicit.. For example, if for you abortion is just plain wrong, then your argument becomes "it's wrong, therefore it's wrong," which is of course no argument at all.

As to voluntary intercourse, I'd agree that this occasion or that occasion may be voluntary, but in itself I do not think that sex is voluntary. That's just not how Mother Nature made living things (most of the things that are living, that is). Nor is awareness all its supposed to be: we need a more precise understanding, here.

And then there's "living being."

And killing a living being? Are you a Jain? Did you kill a fly today? Have a hamburger or a fish-and-chips? Please do not appeal to mutual understanding, but rather be as exact as the argument requires. We all kill things directly or indirectly every day. Some nearby woods were turned into a mini-mall recently, but no one protests the killing of the millions of "beings" that lived in that woods.

Let's try this: a pregnant woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. Why cannot she?

↪DingoJones I can't give you a conclusive answer to that. In myself, and almost every living thing I meet, I observe a strong affinity with life. Any attempts to quantify that objectively would be futile. It is an intuition. — Tzeentch

I see. So your morality is intuition based?

Life and death are natural, and on their own neither moral nor immoral. Perhaps it would be better to say all premature death is tragic. But then again, when an elder dies naturally of old age it may cause grief in their relatives, and is that not tragic? — Tzeentch

I should have asked before...how are you using “tragedy” here? If death and tragedy are both natural, how can an abortion be morally wrong on the basis of a tragic loss of life?

The matter of morality, at least, becomes more clear when a human decides to voluntarily end life prematurely, whether that be by stomping on a bug that did them no harm, or chopping down a tree for no reason, or killing an unwanted fetus. — Tzeentch

Thats the really tough bit, what reasons count as good ones?

I see. So your morality is intuition based? — DingoJones

The idea that life is valuable is based on my intuition and the observation of living things.

My concept of morality takes that idea as a starting point, but utilizes reason from that point onward.

I should have asked before...how are you using “tragedy” here? If death and tragedy are both natural, how can an abortion be morally wrong on the basis of a tragic loss of life? — DingoJones

Abortion is not immoral based on the tragic loss of life. What may make abortion immoral in this context is the willful and conscious decision to cause this tragedy.

If you're asking "why is death tragic?", it is as I said before. It is because life is valuable. I can make that plausible, but I (obviously) can't prove that. I don't think it is an unreasonable starting point, though.

Thats the really tough bit, what reasons count as good ones? — DingoJones

This ties into the willful/voluntary part of my definition. Here are some ideas: Death of another being may be an unwanted side-effect of preserving one's own life, i.e. self-defense or survival.
Sometimes, one may be forced to choose between two tragic decisions, in which case one will choose the 'lesser of the two evils'.
For some people, death is a preferable alternative to life, but they are no longer able to make this decision themselves, i.e. euthanasia.
Roughly the categories:
- Preservation of one's own life
- 'Force majeure'
- Considerations for the well-being of the other.

Two points. I'm interested in your grounds for this argument, and I'd like to see you shed the moral appeal. The latter is a form of should-argument. I'm not such much opposed to such as I think they're problematic and need to be made explicit.. For example, if for you abortion is just plain wrong, then your argument becomes "it's wrong, therefore it's wrong," which is of course no argument at all. — tim wood

In my discussion with I have discussed why I believe life is valuable and death is tragic. Obviously, I cannot give you a line of reasoning to prove life has objective value, so I don't pretend to have one.

If you require one, or are not interested in discussing morality, then I am afraid you are better off finding another conversational partner.

As to voluntary intercourse, I'd agree that this occasion or that occasion may be voluntary, but in itself I do not think that sex is voluntary. That's just not how Mother Nature made living things (most of the things that are living, that is). Nor is awareness all its supposed to be: we need a more precise understanding, here. — tim wood

I disagree. There may be a desire, but I don't believe there to be a compulsion. At least, not in healthy individuals. A rational agent can and should temper their desires through reason.
I also think an appeal to instincts is a slippery slope argument.

And then there's "living being."

And killing a living being? — tim wood

I consider all life to be valuable. That includes plants, insects, even microbes.

Are you a Jain? — tim wood

No.

Did you kill a fly today? — tim wood

No.

Have a hamburger or a fish-and-chips? — tim wood

No.

We all kill things directly or indirectly every day. — tim wood

A tragic fact. Is the suggested follow up "So why not kill another?"

Some nearby woods were turned into a mini-mall recently, but no one protests the killing of the millions of "beings" that lived in that woods. — tim wood

Unfortunate.

Let's try this: a pregnant woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. Why cannot she? — tim wood

What people can and cannot do is not a part of my argument.

Let's try this: a pregnant woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. Why cannot she?
— tim wood
What people can and cannot do is not a part of my argument. — Tzeentch

If I understand you, you believe that there are things people should do and things they shouldn't do, and you have your reasons for so believing. I too have such beliefs and I'm pretty sure most folks do. But you're not about preventing a woman from terminating her pregnancy if she chooses to, yes? As to the tragedy of death, tragedy is one of those words that works at a distance, but up close is difficult. What exactly do you mean by "tragic," and especially when applied to that which is inevitable and that may be, for those who've lived long enough, a gift and no tragedy at all. That is, if you want to call death in itself tragic, you're free to do so, but I don't know what you mean by it. As to life being valuable, that appears to be an axiom of your thinking. But it's not for some other people, nor for most animals. You're left, then, with argument as appeal - which can be adequate grounds, imo, if used with care.

You may care to think about just exactly what it is that makes life valuable, and what "valuable" means. My thinking does not directly oppose yours, near as I can tell, but in thinking things through one sometimes discovers new thought and even small epiphanies. I'm not sure life has any value whatsoever beyond what the life itself grants itself in the exercise of its abilities and capacities. For people, I think that lies in reflection and reason. As these latter can lead to differing conclusions I suppose the valuations can differ. Finally, we can all just agree to get along, or just bash each other on the snout with clubs. Can you improve on this?

What exactly do you mean by "tragic," and especially when applied to that which is inevitable and that may be, for those who've lived long enough, a gift and no tragedy at all. — tim wood

I've touched upon this question when talking with . All living beings seem to have a desire to continue living, and death causes grief.

I considered that perhaps it would be better to say 'All premature death is tragic,' since death can also be natural and is, like you say, inevitable. However, even natural deaths may cause grief, and as such I still see it as something tragic. Tragic in its classic sense would meaning something along the lines of 'sad, but inevitable.'

As to life being valuable, that appears to be an axiom of your thinking. But it's not for some other people, nor for most animals. You're left, then, with argument as appeal - which can be adequate grounds, imo, if used with care. — tim wood

Just to give you some insight in where I am coming from; I think valuing life leads to moral behavior, and I think moral behavior leads to happiness (of both oneself and others). I am fully aware that there is no way to provide proof of that to someone who is skeptical, so instead I appeal to an intuition that seems to be shared by almost all living things. People can disregard that at their own peril and insist that life has no value to them. I think that will lead them to unhappiness.

I keep animals out of a discussion of morality, though, since I don't see animals as moral agents.

You may care to think about just exactly what it is that makes life valuable, and what "valuable" means. — tim wood

These are interesting questions, for sure. But also extremely hard to answer. It would deserve its own thread.

I'm not sure life has any value whatsoever beyond what the life itself grants itself in the exercise of its abilities and capacities. For people, I think that lies in reflection and reason. As these latter can lead to differing conclusions I suppose the valuations can differ. — tim wood

Maybe. Consciousness definitely seems like it has some unique qualities found nowhere else, as far as we know. However, I'm not sure if I would consider it is what makes life valuable, unless we broaden our idea of what consciousness is.

You’ve given me a lot to think about, thanks. :up:

Just to give you some insight in where I am coming from; I think valuing life leads to moral behavior, and I think moral behavior leads to happiness (of both oneself and others). I am fully aware that there is no way to provide proof of that to someone who is skeptical, so instead I appeal to an intuition that seems to be shared by almost all living things. People can disregard that at their own peril and insist that life has no value to them. I think that will lead them to unhappiness. — Tzeentch

Amen! We don't differ much - if at all - in our respective approaches. I, for example, agree that morality cannot be externally grounded, But at the same time I'm persuaded it - morality - is self-grounding and is thereby able to defend itself against all attacks.

But the question as to imposing my morality on others either by law/reason or law/force is open. In my very limited experience and exposure to abortion, most women are much affected by it, but that not grounds to prohibit or even limit it. As to the biology of it, there's no morality there, and what can be made from it seems to support the notion that it's ultimately a woman's choice, and hers alone.

But the question as to imposing my morality on others either by law/reason or law/force is open. In my very limited experience and exposure to abortion, most women are much affected by it, but that not grounds to prohibit or even limit it. As to the biology of it, there's no morality there, and what can be made from it seems to support the notion that it's ultimately a woman's choice, and hers alone. — tim wood

I agree. One can only introduce people to a different point of view and hope they come to the same conclusions as you do.

If you pay taxes, as an adult, then you know that that money is more than likely going to be used, at some point to kill people. Could be via black op groups that right now operate in dozens of nations, could be in a war that will likely not be about peace and justice, but have other motivations. One can just trust that present and future administrations will only use black ops and wars against military targets with no civilian collatoral kills, but this would be naive. Any taxpayer is assuming a consequentialist stance, right off the bat. The innocents killed with my tax dollars were killed for the greater good - I think even that is not correct, but it means that deontologist stances are very hard to hold as a taxpayer. Then one must have a great deal of faith after that shift to consequentialism in the intentions of administrations. And every single war kills foetuses and the women they are inside.

This problem also arises for purchaser of products and services, given the behavior of many corporations.

People seem to be very focused on women taking responsibility for sex, but generally not so interested in what their tax dollars and purchases contribute too when it comes to innocent lives.

Those are all very interesting topics. I'd happily discuss them with you in another thread. I don't see how the existence of other issues should stop us from discussing abortion, though.

By the way, I am in favor of men taking responsibility for sex just as much as women.

Those are all very interesting topics. I'd happily discuss them with you in another thread. I don't see how the existence of other issues should stop us from discussing abortion, though. — Tzeentch

To raise those issues was to point out the general rule - I may or may not have unfairly constructed, but it's on topic. If the general rule is one must take responsibility for one's contribution to the death of innocents, we are all on the front lines, not just pregnant women. And if that is the rule than I am amazed I don't hear much about the other ways most people contribute to the deaths of innocents, including from those against abortion. So, it makes me wonder if the reasons they put forward are really the reasons. Or if they do not realize that they are involved already in other deaths. If people are actually consistent about the rule, then fine. But if they are not consistant about the rule, then their argument, against abortion, may actually not be the reason they have that position. It's kind of a test.

I don't think I suggested that anyone should stop discussing abortion. I don't know where that came from.

By the way, I am in favor of men taking responsibility for sex just as much as women. — Tzeentch

That's good, though of coure they can't. But to the extent they can, they should, yes.

That's good, though of coure they can't. — Coben

How so?

Well, the woman is carrying the baby/fetus. Her body is taking care of those needs. Her choices in what she puts in her mouth, how she moves, what she does and doesn't do are part of her responsibility taking. The birth and the pregnancy will alter her body, perhaps permanently. She may never come back to her original weight. Her genitals may change shape and tension. She will experience, should she come to term, pain the man cannot. Her responsibility includes a risk of dying, post-partum depression, The woman is responsible for her own heath and the health of what may become her child in ways a man cannot participate in. He can support her in millions of ways but she has de facto responsibilities that he cannot, however loving, take on.

responsibility
/rɪˌspɒnsɪˈbɪlɪti/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: responsibility

1.
the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.

About a half grown fetus is a person. If a girl wants to abort, she -should- do it early or take the pain for her own wrongdoing.

A baby in womb, I think also has mental phases and half grown would be enough mental activity to be classed as a person.

Rough estimate.

I don't think science or philosophy will ever be able to say when it becomes a person. Best to error on the side of caution

It seems to me that you are saying men and women have different responsibilities, not that men cannot take responsibility. That men can and should take responsibility for sex, the pregnancies they may cause, and the children they may sire seems obvious to me.

There's no simplifying: women and men are different. Nor will Procrustean language or thinking make them the same, except by the application of a Procrustean force.

It comes down to cases and considerations. On that, Roe v. Wade is pretty good. Those who want to overturn Roe labor in the grip of irrational want and not reason. As a test, consider their grounds or axioms for their arguments.

Or start simple: how is the issue of an abortion anyone else's business than the woman's and her doctor's?

Those who want to overturn Roe labor in the grip of irrational want and not reason. As a test, consider their grounds or axioms for their arguments.

Or start simple: how is the issue of an abortion anyone else's business than the woman's and her doctor's? — tim wood

Because a doctor is supposed to save lives and a mother is not supposed to kill her kids. I think we should respect fetuses, chimps, Neanderthals, homo Erecti, and all which fall within that continuum. I don't think there is a gray area on that. Perhaps there never was nor will be an organism that is not clearly within or without "the limit" of what a primate is. At least, we should act suchly

That men can and should take responsibility for sex, the pregnancies they may cause, and the children they may sire seems obvious to me. — Tzeentch

Sure, of course. Something that this person at least forgets to include.

It seems to me that you are saying men and women have different responsibilities, not that men cannot take responsibility. — Tzeentch

I am pretty sure I made it clear that men could take responsibility. They just can't take as much. There is a unavoidable difference here, not men's fault, but there it is. A woman, for example, can in fact take all the responsibility for a pregnancy and birth, once it is underway. A man can never do that. Of course men can take responsibility and many do.

I presume more equality to women and men.

It's more like a pact.

She should also be careful, and not lead men astray, for example.

At the monent it's legal to have sex just for the abortion. Of course it's ok if the fetus isn't hurt badly.

Preventing birth can be done smartly.

There's no simplifying: women and men are different. — tim wood

I never implied they weren't.

It comes down to cases and considerations. On that, Roe v. Wade is pretty good. Those who want to overturn Roe labor in the grip of irrational want and not reason. As a test, consider their grounds or axioms for their arguments.

Or start simple: how is the issue of an abortion anyone else's business than the woman's and her doctor's? — tim wood

I'm not interested in what laws have to say, nor am I interested in telling people what they can and can't do.

With that said, I have an opinion about what I, under the circumstances I have specified, perceive as immoral behavior and why.

So what is the point you're trying to make?