my position is that I am for abortion according to my moral principles, but if we take the logical proposition that a zygote cannot be killed because she does not feel anything or because she is not a reasonable person, then we logically assume that people with the syndrome can be killed down because he is not a reasonable person or we can kill sleeping people because they do not feel anything, yes we can say that a person will wake up, but then he will cease to be a sleeping person with the same condition a person can be born, it is important to note that only with the fusion of a sperm and an egg can to be born a person and of course separately they do not represent human life, which is understandable. I am deeply convinced that the problem of abortion is a language problem, because the concept of a person is a humanistic concept and we cannot trace the moment of its origin, but if we take the proposition that you cannot kill a person at one stage, then you cannot kill him at another. but this only concerns the logical sequence in the real world, there are various situations when an abortion is necessary and I support this, and of course for me, according to my moral convictions, the death of a person who was born is much worse than the death of a zygote.

↪Antinatalist my position is that I am for abortion according to my moral principles, but if we take the logical proposition that a zygote cannot be killed because she does not feel anything or because she is not a reasonable person, then we logically assume that people with the syndrome can be killed down because he is not a reasonable person or we can kill sleeping people because they do not feel anything, yes we can say that a person will wake up, but then he will cease to be a sleeping person with the same condition a person can be born, it is important to note that only with the fusion of a sperm and an egg can to be born a person and of course separately they do not represent human life, which is understandable. — evtifron

Ability to feel emotions is one criteria, not the only one. A living person usually have also, for example, future plans, some interest for current and future life etc. These things exist, however, is the person sleeping or not. And I don´t believe that sleeping person doesn´t feel anything.

And for my point of view is not essential is somebody reasonable person, essential point is - but not the only one - can she/he feel emotions (pleasure, pain and so on).

I am deeply convinced that the problem of abortion is a language problem, because the concept of a person is a humanistic concept and we cannot trace the moment of its origin, but if we take the proposition that you cannot kill a person at one stage, then you cannot kill him at another. but this only concerns the logical sequence in the real world, there are various situations when an abortion is necessary and I support this, and of course for me, according to my moral convictions, the death of a person who was born is much worse than the death of a zygote — evtifron

I agree, that the part of the problem is the way we use words. My point is when you kill fetus at early stage of pregnancy, you are not killing a person.

unfettered right." But to what, when, how, and under what circumstances?
— tim wood
To kill her baby, anytime while it's in her body, any way she chooses, under any circumstances. — James Riley

I'm pro-choice all the live long day - although I have never had to walk the walk. But this seems to assign a value to the passage from mother's body to world that is only arbitrary. And arbitrary sometimes does not play well with reality. I suppose the question then to you is, does arbitrary do it for you? Arbitrary can work; it may even be best; but it has zero moral dimension (excepting cases when it is the most moral). And as corollary, arbitrary requires a specificity of sharpness of boundary such that all cases fall one side or the other. Off-hand I do not see how that fine line can be drawn absent consideration of right, wrong, good, bad, better, worse.

But this seems to assign a value to the passage from mother's body to world that is only arbitrary. — tim wood

I don't think it is arbitrary at all. The "before" involves the integrity of the mother's body and decisions related thereto. The "after" has removed her body from the equation and kicked us into considerations of the state's desires and the integrity of the child's body.

Before = her. After = whatever.

Nor would technological advances, C-sections, paternal rights, blah blah blah, have any impact on this demarcation.

Before = her. After = whatever. — James Riley

Point! But it seems to me incomplete.

Question re the range: a branded - thereby a fast-fish - cow drops an unbranded calf. Is it a loose-fish on the instant it hits the ground? (Moby Dick, chap. 89, "Fast fish and loose fish.")

Yours the notion that personhood starts at separation, and that can only be, at least at law, what I think is called a legal fiction, and those at best amoral, or they had better be, it seems to me.

And the morality of the thing is like salt in the stew. You can have your stew without any salt, but that satisfies no one and is ultimately unhealthy. Or you can try to manage the salt. I'm not looking for solutions, here, but rather arguing that the problem is not solved within Procrustean parameters.

Question re the range: a branded - thereby a fast-fish - cow drops an unbranded calf. Is it a loose-fish on the instant it hits the ground? (Moby Dick, chap. 89, "Fast fish and loose fish.") — tim wood

On the range, an un-branded calf is called slick. The mother could be slick too. Kind of like humans: We don't belong to a rancher. But to answer your question, it would be it's own self before it hits the ground, while it is airborne, on the way down, once it is out. Of course most cows I've seen and calves I've pulled have been on the ground. So, the distinction is in or out.

Yours the notion that personhood starts at separation, — tim wood

That's not my notion. My only concern is the integrity of the woman's body. If the state wants to attach personhood before, during, at or after conception, in the womb out on the ground, or as some biologists might argue, once the entity is capable of reproduction (puberty) is the state's business. But the woman's body trump's whatever concern or notion the state might have.

The state can have it's fictions, but my notion is anything but amoral.

the problem is not solved within Procrustean parameters — tim wood

I don't get your stew/salt argument, but I will say the problem is indeed solved, and without "Procrustean parameters." I had to look that up, but if it means "(especially of a framework or system) enforcing uniformity or conformity without regard to natural variation or individuality" then my position is gold. For my position is distinctly reliant upon natural variation and individuality.

then what are we killing?

↪Antinatalist then what are we killing? — evtifron

A fetus, not a sentient human being.

a fetus is sentient and is a human being, what are you talking about? Once there is a conception, there is a human being. If nobody terminates (that's the word, not interrupt) the pregnancy, that fertilized ovum is going to fully develop, that means that the whole potentiality of development is part of its essence.

when the ovum is fertilized, there you get the essence which has the potentiality of development in somebody like you. There is life, human life and killing an innocent human life is normally against every constitution
, which defends it. There you see that legal abortion, except extreme questionable cases and situations which are not the rule, is not logical, therefore technically illegal. As you can see, I am rather focusing in human life and that is sufficient to discard abortion. Person as a concept is tricky, malleable and used to confuse and not to talk about the real thing. Human life begins at the conception, legally, biologically, philosophically, as you can prove by studying yourself.

↪Antinatalist a fetus is sentient and is a human being, what are you talking about? Once there is a conception, there is a human being. If nobody terminates (that's the word, not interrupt) the pregnancy, that fertilized ovum is going to fully develop, that means that the whole potentiality of development is part of its essence. — Alexandros

In early stage of pregnancy, a fetus isn´t sentient being. After moment of the conception, there is a cell lump. It´s quite analogous to compare it to embryo of a cow.
We don´t give human rights for cow´s embryos, we will raise cows to be eaten.

Already born cow, something in our culinaristic menu, is far more sentient being than a human fetus in early stages of pregnancy.

In that state, abortion is obligatory act. That potential forthcoming child never have to be born.

Again, there is a whole potential in process already, which you are terminating, if you didn't do anything, the development is going to be a persona. That is to say, it's a human life that cell clump. If I take cells from my skin, it's not going to become a person. Don't try to evade moral acts. You are nobody to judge who has to be born. There is something called responsibility of moral acts

Again, there is a whole potential in process already, which you are terminating, if you didn't do anything, the development is going to be a persona. — Alexandros

Exactly: 'if you didn't do anything': that's the whole point here. It's only if you don't abort the foetus that the foetus turns into something that has moral significance, i.e. a being capable of feeling pleasure and pain, a being to which it matters how it is treated. But if you abort the foetus before it becomes sentient, the potential is never realised, so the foetus never becomes something that has moral significance, i.e. never becomes something to which it matters how it is treated. That is precisely why it is not immoral to abort pre-sentient foetuses.

I see your point. Although that proves to be inmoral because the potential is never realized because of killing it and as it it a human life that is a moral act. If your intention is not to bring a kid to this world, do not initiate the process. I know two people who were almost aborted because of those trends of pseudo philosophy and pseudo science. And they are happy to be alive. So the problem here in your argument is that you feel entitled to decide over a human life tgat has rights and that nobody should do. Life is naturally developing itself and somebody comes and terminates it. That's inmoral because of terminating a human life, the point about feeling is irrelevant. According to you, a human life has moral significance because of being sentient and that's false. A human life has a moral value in its essence.

A human life has a moral value in its essence. — Alexandros

No, it doesn't. Suppose that there was only one man left alive, and he was so brain-damaged that he could never feel anything again. It would not matter to him if he died. His death would only matter to him if he could somehow regain sentience and start to feel again. And of course, since he's the last man left alive, it can't matter to anyone else either. So the death of such a man would not matter at all, because there is no-one for it to matter to; it would therefore have no value, positive or negative. This shows that human life and death only matter, only have value, insofar as sentience is involved. It is sentience that confers value, and without sentience, there is no value. Human life in itself has no value; it only acquires value where there is sentience.

The view that human life has a moral value per se is, in practice, a covert species prejudice. People who say that human life has moral value generally believe that any human life has more moral value than any non-human life. This is irrational, anti-scientific, and immoral. There's no scientific or rational basis for the attachment of value to human life rather than non-human life; humans are just a species of animal, one among many. Humans just think they matter more than other species because they're biased in their own favour. It's like white people thinking they matter more than black people: it's fundamentally immoral.

I know two people who were almost aborted because of those trends of pseudo philosophy and pseudo science. And they are happy to be alive. — Alexandros

If the fact that two people who were nearly aborted turned out to be happy is a good argument against abortion, then presumably the fact that a lot of people who were not aborted turned out to be unhappy is a good argument for abortion.

In fact neither is a good argument. You can't have people having babies just on the off-chance that they might grow up to be happy. They might not.

there's some flawed reasoning there. Morality exists only in human consciousness. Therefore in your example there is no moral subject. Ergo, it proves nothing. Next point, the value of human life is morally objective. That's the basis of Morality. What you are trying to put on the table here is ammoral.
Next points you've written are not even arguments , you digress saying "humans think", which is rather nonsense, and then you get completely off the track talking about white and black, which is absolutely nonsense and has nothing to do. It's easy, Morality implies the value of human life objectively. If you are against that, that's called ammoral and the actions guided by that unreasonable way of thinking, if that can be said to be thinking, is immoral.

the problem is that, in your opinion, a person will be human when he is intelligent and experiencing emotions, but who told you that? how to empirically trace the moment when a person becomes a person? the answer is obvious in no way can it be traced, one way or another I will repeat once again the zygote is the stage of HUMAN development if you do not kill a person at the age of 5 when he is still developing, why should you kill him before birth? and a person develops after his birth for a huge amount of time, a person does not become a person after birth who determines this and how? magically? I will repeat once again that I am for abortion and for human life, just like you, but you need to be able to discard your prejudices and use logical analysis thank you

↪Antinatalist the problem is that, in your opinion, a person will be human when he is intelligent and experiencing emotions, but who told you that? how to empirically trace the moment when a person becomes a person? the answer is obvious in no way can it be traced, one way or another I will repeat once again the zygote is the stage of HUMAN development if you do not kill a person at the age of 5 when he is still developing, why should you kill him before birth? and a person develops after his birth for a huge amount of time, a person does not become a person after birth who determines this and how? magically? I will repeat once again that I am for abortion and for human life, just like you, but you need to be able to discard your prejudices and use logical analysis thank you — evtifron

In my opinion the question, is a person intelligent or is she/he not, is not relevant for her/his value. The ability to suffer and feel emotions are relevant, however.


"I will repeat once again the zygote is the stage of HUMAN development if you do not kill a person at the age of 5 when he is still developing, why should you kill him before birth?"

For my point of view, the point that is child still developing, is irrelevant. Child has reached the state of human being much earlier.
Like I said before, the demarcation line is always hard to set absolutely correct. When the fetus becomes human? David Benatar says it´s about 28 weeks. Some people say for sure, that fetus becomes human earlier.

Saying that, my point of view, to kill a fetus - make an abortion - in first couple of months has a quite big safe margin comparing to Benatar´s opinion. Benatar could be right, but in my opinion is always right, moral obligation as a matter of fact, make an abortion in first couple of months of pregnancy.

I will repeat once again that I am for abortion and for human life, just like you, but you need to be able to discard your prejudices and use logical analysis thank you — evtifron

If you are for abortion, how will you answer?

Whatever it is, doesn't mean we can't kill it, legally, biologically, philosophically, morally, or ethically if we want.

All we have to do is place the integrity of a women's body, and her control over it, above any life which happens to reside within her.

I have to respect your life until you place me in reasonable fear of imminent and serious bodily harm, in which case I can defend myself, and if you get killed in the process, tough. We could even lower that standard, if we want, to where my fear need not be reasonable, as long as I had fear. Or even less, not imminent. Or even less, not serious bodily harm, but any harm. We can round boys up and send them off to war. We can kill murders. We can do all kinds of things and still be civil, legal, logical, moral, philosophical, ethical, etc. Being "innocent" as a baby can be trumped by considerations of the woman. My house, my rules. Her body, her rules.

The only leg pro-life people have to stand on is the sanctity of human life. Which, of course, is not so sacred when it comes down to it. We take it all the time on the back end; we can take it on the front end too. So they then try to qualify it based upon innocence. But again, innocence can be trumped by concern for the control over ones own carcass. We can tell her coulda-shoulda-woulda, but it's her body and there is no compelling state interest in keeping babies alive, beyond the creation of new tax payers. And that can be addressed at the border.

Morality exists only in human consciousness. Therefore in your example there is no moral subject. Ergo, it proves nothing. Next point, the value of human life is morally objective. — Alexandros

The first and last statements here are incompatible. If morality exists only in human consciousness, then there are no objective moral truths; but if the value of human life is morally objective, then there ARE objective moral truths. You can't hold both positions, they are contradictory.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'moral subject'. If you mean there is no-one in a position to make a moral judgment, you're wrong, because you and I and others reading this thread are in that position. If you mean that there is no-one in my scenario who is affected by anything such that their being affected is a moral issue, then yes, that is precisely the point I was making.

That's the basis of Morality.

Well, as I've said, I disagree. My example of the last man alive is an argument to support my position. You've given me no arguments to support yours, only assertions.

Next points you've written are not even arguments

They weren't meant to be formal arguments, they are simply facts which shed some light on the reasons why people claim that human life is something special.

It's easy, Morality implies the value of human life objectively.

Do you think it is immoral to beat a dog for your own amusement? If you don't, then your view is immoral. If you do, then you hold a moral view which does not imply the value of human life.

Again, there is a whole potential in process already, which you are terminating, if you didn't do anything, the development is going to be a persona. That is to say, it's a human life that cell clump. If I take cells from my skin, it's not going to become a person. Don't try to evade moral acts. You are nobody to judge who has to be born. There is something called responsibility of moral acts — Alexandros

A fetus isn´t human being at early stage of pregnancy.

You are nobody to judge who should forced to be born. Having a child is a selfish act.
The moral fact is, if you´re pregnant, is a moral obligation to terminate the pregnancy (at least in the first couple of months).
That is the responsibility of moral acts.

no, that's called amoral. If you want to change meaning and twist and pervert concepts, go ahead, there are persons who say tge earth is flat and 2 plus 2 not really four. Those have a name too. Study biology

let's make it concise, in your example there are no moral subjects as morality only exists in human consciousness, there are different degrees of consciousness. Animals are conscious too. Anyway, morality can exist in that dimension only and it doesn't affect the objectivity of it. Objectivity which is going to be attained through intellect. You have an analigy with numbers or ecuation pointing out relations objectively existent outside the realm of the mind, we just discover them through intellect. Regarding morality, it exists only when there are moral subjects and its universal values are objective in logical thinking. We disagree in a point in which discussion cannot go further because you are sustaining ammorality as a basis for every other point you want to make.

integrity of woman's body applies only at life risks. The axiom is simple, you cannot kill another human life. That's criminal. You tell me but it's legal. Yes, nazism was legal too. Moreover it's technically illegal as the constitutions normally protect human life beforehand. Definition of human life is already and long ago clarified by biology. Science has also proved that the new human being is cromosomically different, another human being, despite being inside another, that's the way we reproduct and if the woman do not like that just do not havw a kid, do not initiate the process, be responsible beforehand. Do not try to avoid responsibility. It follows, a woman cannot decide over any other human being. Killing it's own baby is murder. As you see, the whole issue is nonsense and goes down easily. The real issue here is not debating this stupid thing that a mother can kill her own child, a murder aggravated by familiar link. The real issue is its impulsion as a politic and as a busses. There is ideology behind and evil planning. Look up some info about the origin of planned parenthood for example. My advice: study, learn, think, attach to logic.

↪Antinatalist no, that's called amoral. If you want to change meaning and twist and pervert concepts, go ahead, there are persons who say tge earth is flat and 2 plus 2 not really four. Those have a name too. Study biology — Alexandros

Study biology yourself. There is lots of suffering among of others animals in the world, in the nature and on the other hand, caused by human beings. Your way to put freshly existent fetus´s life´s value over fetuses of other animals, or even already born animals, is speciesism. And it´s just stupid.

Study also moral and origin of ethics. Maybe you learn something.

a psychiatric condition is behind antinatalists, calling for destruction of human life and claiming that it has no value. Evidently an inner conflict can create such a profile. May you one day open your eyes and discover how unconscious forces are guiding yourself into the realm where there is no reason. Onthe other side there is a realm of reason. Biology and logic have proven my points. Do not mix the animals here because it was never a point of discussion here. Which I do respect under the same arguments, the value of them is not given by their capacity of feeling pain. In such a frame I am able to respect insects for example. The only animal that can give them value is the human being in its dimension of morality. Intellect puts the man in a higher hierarchy in the animal realm. Yes there is hierarchy and structures and responsibilities. People with trouble accepting that develop their complexes in ideologies and as Jung called them spirit epidemics. Anyway, again, this has nothing to do with the discussion but even there your reasoning is flawed. Evidently you just feel forced to get off the track under feeble arguments, in reality the lack of them. My advice, study, be humble and take responsibilities.

and there is no compelling state interest in keeping babies alive, beyond the creation of new tax payers. — James Riley

For most of us, sentences like this one of yours is mere rhetorical flourish, and like a strand of long blond hair on a sweater can be (maybe had better be?) plucked off the body of the argument without harm or damage. But with you, these are part of your argument and thus more like loose yarn, which if pulled can indeed harm or damage the garment.

No (other) compelling state interest? C'mon, you can do better than that. Or if instead you just mean a shorthand that we all understand, then understand that not all understand it. Two expressions of fundamental interest, "compelling" notwithstanding. The king's interest in his subjects, and, John Donne, Meditation 17.
http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/meditation17.php
Which, though clearly brief, most folks don't get through, and thus think they understand it when they don't. In trust you're not most folks.

integrity of woman's body applies only at life risks. — Alexandros

No, it does not. Integrity applies at threat of unlawful touching (assault) and unlawful touching (battery). She gets to decide whether any touching is unlawful or not. She can also revoke permission at any time. So, if conception occurs, whether she consented to it or not, she can revoke consent at any time prior to birth.

The axiom is simple, you cannot kill another human life. That's criminal. — Alexandros

No, it's not. It's homicide. Homicide is not murder until we say it is.

The balance of you post has been dealt with so I'll stop dissecting it here.