Abortion

cosmic_cs_sl said:

If the baby doesn't have a working cortex, then I don't think anyone would morally repulsed if the mom had anabortion. Again, morality is based on what is known at the time a decision is made. You can add hypothetical developmental anomalies, but the main topic isabortionwhen you know that there's currently nothing wrong with the zygote / fetus.

Click to expand...

I would not be so sure in that assumption. We are including people who would like to outlaw all abortions even those that endanger the mothers life. These are the same people who would keep a corticalliy dead person of life support forever for religious reasons and have the highest moral authority to do so. (In their own opinion)


But to assess your central point what is known by a mother at the time of a zygoteabortionis that something which has the potential to be a baby was aborted. That at the time ofabortionthere was no certianty (except what the mother believes) as to wether or not that zygote would become a human life.

What does a fetus having the ability to be "viable on its own" have to do with life being taken duringabortion?

Click to expand...

There is the bad assumption in this that you somehow know enough at the zygote stage for it to be a human life or even worse you assume a zygote is a human life without proving that it is possible.

Both assumptions place the burden of your morality on the mother without solid proof.

Edit: I make a logical assumption about what is a human life here. While I avoid defining all aspects of what is required to call something a human life I will instead say that a human life must at a minnimum contain a working cortex. This being the most basic absolute I could find that is also 100% of the time always true.

Note that I grant you would be on solid ground statistically speaking but that's statistics not morality.

Selix_sl said:

I would not be so sure in that assumption. We are including people who would like to outlaw all abortions even those that endanger the mothers life. These are the same people who would keep a corticalliy dead person of life support forever for religious reasons and have the highest moral authority to do so. (In their own opinion)


But to assess your central point what is known by a mother at the time of a zygoteabortionis that something which has the potential to be a baby was aborted. That at the time ofabortionthere was no certianty (except what the mother believes) as to wether or not that zygote would become a human life.

Click to expand...

Whether or not there is certainty a zygote WOULD become a human is beside the point. At the time you made the decision, you had no reason to think that the zygote wasn't viable. In the same way, there is no certainty I will be alive tomorrow, but no one would argue that it's wrong (arguable ) to kill me today.

Again, if you bring up stages in human development when it comes to the definition of "life," you're just digging yourself into a bottomless pit. That's because you can probably name 100,000 different stages of human / fetal / zygotic development where someone can say "oh, now it's 'alive' and 'human'." You say a working cortex, but I can point to gene X, Y, Z and say that when those genes are expressed, then life has formed. Or I can say, well since a baby isn't actual conscious of itself until it's 2-3 years old, it can't be wrong to put it under a smasher and smash it to bits. People have pointed out that human / fetal / zygotic development is essential a continuum that STARTS at conception. Without conception, the ball has not started rolling.

This is why I'm arguing that life should be defined by conception, because it is the simplest and most logical starting point for life.

Edit: I want to reiterate that I am supportive of women's rights forabortion. I'm just trying to argue that it is taking a life, so try to think about it before you do it

cosmic_cs_sl said:

Whether or not there is certainty a zygote WOULD become a human is beside the point. At the time you made the decision, you had no reason to think that the zygote wasn't viable. In the same way, there is no certainty I will be alive tomorrow, but no one would argue that it's wrong (arguable

) to kill me today.

Click to expand...

I said before....

Selix_sl said:

As to how this relates to moralityif a women expressed that she believedher zygote to be so genetically unstable as to never be born alive then the moral question you face is when do you have the right without proof of life or lack of danger to the women, to force her to continue with the pregnancy?

Click to expand...

That's her reason. Or for that matter maybe she has received divine knowledge that her zygote is malformed and should end it early. The point here being less what the reason is versus when you gain a superior moral right to deny her whatever reason she has.

cosmic_cs_sl said:

Again, if you bring up stages in human development when it comes to the definition of "life," you're just digging yourself into a bottomless pit. That's because you can probably name 100,000 different stages of human / fetal / zygotic development where someone can say "oh, now it's 'alive' and 'human'." You say a working cortex, but I can point to gene X, Y, Z and say that when those genes are expressed, then life has formed. Or I can say, well since a baby isn't actual conscious of itself until it's 2-3 years old, it can't be wrong to put it under a smasher and smash it to bits. People have pointed out that human / fetal / zygotic development is essential a continuum that STARTS at conception. Without conception, the ball has not started rolling.

This is why I'm arguing that life should be defined by conception, because it is the simplest and most logical starting point for life.

Click to expand...

This is both true and incomplete. Yes you can point at certain genes and see when they are missing that the zygote will never be alive but can you do so while the zygote is still in the mother? There are things you can measure and/or that we already have definite knowledge of like cortex activity which we can then combine with other knowledge (i.e. no cortex = never alive) so as to define life in the context of morality andabortion.

From a purely scientific point of view the definition of "life" would start well before the zygote or the egg or the sperm which is why when I use life in the context ofabortionI do mean it by dictionary definition description.

Please rename to "TheAbortion(of a) Thread".

Selix_sl said:

That's her reason. Or for that matter maybe she has received divine knowledge that her zygote is malformed and should end it early. The point here being less what the reason is versus when you gain a superior moral right to deny her whatever reason she has.

Click to expand...

Her reason isn't relevant to when life begins.

This is both true and incomplete. Yes you can point at certain genes and see when they are missing that the zygote will never be alive but can you do so while the zygote is still in the mother? There are things you can measure and/or that we already have definite knowledge of like cortex activity which we can then combine with other knowledge (i.e. no cortex = never alive) so as to define life in the context of morality andabortion.

From a purely scientific point of view the definition of "life" would start well before the zygote or the egg or the sperm which is why when I use life in the context ofabortionI do mean it by dictionary definition description.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something in your points, but they just don't seem persuasive. You seem to be implying that if we don't know that the fetus is alive or not, then it's ok to take its life (including the situation when we KNOW there iscurrentlynothing wrong with it).

Also, what do you mean life starts before the zygote / egg / or sperm? Does that mean life started with the first spontaneously replicating DNA molecule?

Her reason isn't relevant to when life begins.

Click to expand...

You can use the scientific definition of life in which case the sperm and the egg clearly qualify as life before becoming a zygote or you can use an arbitrary standard which will vary depending on person, beliefs etc.

Maybe I'm missing something in your points, but they just don't seem persuasive. You seem to be implying that if we don't know that the fetus is alive or not, then it's ok to take its life (including the situation when we KNOW there is currently nothing wrong with it).

Click to expand...

But you don't KNOW that there is currently nothing wrong with it. Youknowonly that a zygote exists inside the mother. You have no way of knowing if that zygote is damaged in ways that will eventually lead to its inability (for example) to ever be born alive . You can ASSUME based on past statistical evidence that nothing is wrong or likely to be wrong with the zygote but that is the most you can do. You can then choose to enforce your morality based statistics on the mother if that is your wish but that begs the question.

Also, what do you mean life starts before the zygote / egg / or sperm? Does that mean life started with the first spontaneously replicating DNA molecule?

Click to expand...

Are you asking from the stand point of dictionary definition of life or from context withinabortion? FYI, I have already answered both.

Selix_sl said:

You can use the scientific definition of life in which case the sperm and the egg clearly qualify as life before becoming a zygote or you can use an arbitrary standard which will vary depending on person, beliefs etc.



But you don't KNOW that there is currently nothing wrong with it. Youknowonly that a zygote exists inside the mother. You have no way of knowing if that zygote is damaged in ways that will eventually lead to its inability (for example) to ever be born alive . You can ASSUME based on past statistical evidence that nothing is wrong or likely to be wrong with the zygote but that is the most you can do. You can then choose to enforce your morality based statistics on the mother if that is your wish but that begs the question.




Are you asking from the stand point of dictionary definition of life or from context withinabortion? FYI, I have already answered both.

Click to expand...

What you're missing is that there is no certainty in FUTURE life at all. I could have an undetected heart defect that will kill me tomorrow. It's the same with babies / fetuses / zygotes. You can have a baby that looks fine until it's born to find that its heart valves are all messed up, and it dies soon after birth.

All you can figure out is that the fetus looks viable at the moment.

You are missing the point of the word "life" in theabortioncontext. The word "life" in theabortioncontext is NEW life, not "life" as in a stupid skin cell or something (a sperm cell is not new life, duh?). This is absurd that I even have to mention this.

I am going to respond to your post in reverse order.

cosmic_cs_sl said:

You are missing the point of the word "life" in theabortioncontext. The word "life" in theabortioncontext is NEW life, not "life" as in a stupid skin cell or something (a sperm cell is not new life, duh?). This is absurd that I even have to mention this.

Click to expand...

I am sorry that you feel it is absurd to have to mention this but I wonder why you felt you had to at all? I said..

Selix_sl said:

You can use the scientific definition of life in which case the sperm and the egg clearly qualify as life before becoming a zygote or you can use an arbitrary standard which will vary depending on person, beliefs etc.

Click to expand...

How is this missing the point? Did it not accurately explain that "life" in theabortioncontext is different from "life" the scientific definition?
By your own usage of NEW life have you not just created an arbitrary standard based on your own views, beliefs, etc.?

Let us use an example. There are people who believe that a fertilized egg deserves all the rights that a healthy newborn receives from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. This NEW life in context ofabortionis for all intents and purposes a full human being as far as the person in this example is concerned.

There are some other people who believe that a fertilized egg should not receive all the rights and privileges of a newborn until the fetus is 20+ weeks old. This NEW life in context ofabortionis not a full human being until 20+ weeks as far as the person in this example is concerned.

There are some more other people who believe that an unborn child should never receive the full rights of the newborn until they are born. This NEW life in context ofabortionis not a full human being until born as far as the person in this example is concerned.

While everyone in those 3 examples would agree that sperm + egg = zygote they would not all agree on what that means in context ofabortion. Hence arbitrary standards, beliefs, etc.

cosmic_cs_sl said:

What you're missing is that there is no certainty in FUTURE life at all. I could have an undetected heart defect that will kill me tomorrow. It's the same with babies / fetuses / zygotes. You can have a baby that looks fine until it's born to find that its heart valves are all messed up, and it dies soon after birth.

All you can figure out is that the fetus looks viable at the moment.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying now if you would please read this closely. I am not talking about what might happen in the future. I am talking about the morality of the decision the mother makes when she decides to have anabortion.

If that mother believesfor any reasonthat the baby is/will be DOA then choosing to have anabortionbased on that decision is not an immoral one as IN HER OWN MIND as it is just a collection of dead, semi-dead, and cancerous cells.

Selix_sl said:

If that mother believesfor any reasonthat the baby is/will be DOA then choosing to have anabortionbased on that decision is not an immoral one as IN HER OWN MIND as it is just a collection of dead, semi-dead, and cancerous cells.

Click to expand...

I'll get to your other points later. They are all flawed.

Look, you're telling me that most pregnant people have abortions thinking that their fetus isn't going to be viable (not talking about viable in the financial sense, duh)?

Also, I already said that it doesn't matter what the pregnant woman thinks, just as it doesn't matter what a psychopath believes when he murders a person. The psychopath's immoral act doesn't dissolve because he thought he was moral. You focus on this "in her own mind" as though only her view matters. What matters is the logic and reason behind the decision (as analyzed by the society - hi, I didn't mention anything about religion, I said reason and logic).

cosmic_cs_sl said:

Look, you're telling me thatmostpregnant people have abortions thinking that their fetus isn't going to be viable (not talking about viable in the financial sense, duh)?

Click to expand...

I most certainly amNOTtelling you that. I AM telling you that the foundation stand on (life begins at conception) to judge others by your own morals is not the same foundation for everyone else.

cosmic_cs_sl said:

Also, I already said that it doesn't matter what the pregnant woman thinks, just as it doesn't matter what a psychopath believes when he murders a person. The psychopath's immoral act doesn't dissolve because he thought he was moral. You focus on this "in her own mind" as though only her view matters. What matters is the logic and reason behind the decision (as analyzed by the society - hi, I didn't mention anything about religion, I said reason and logic).

Click to expand...

If 50 + 1 % of the country believes being gay is wrong does that make being gay immoral? 75% What if 51 + 1 % believe the other 49% only count as 3/5ths of a person? This is why I don't like statistics determining morality.

However to keep this in the context ofabortionyou bring up a good point (though I don't know if you meant to), when do the morals of society supersede the rights of the individual? If we as a society agree that each person shall have absolute dominion over their own person yet 50 + 1 % of us define a zygote as it's own person is that enough to supersede the rights of the host mother?

What if it is even more fractured like it is in our own society where 40% believe 1 thing another 40% believe another and 20% believe something else? Does any group have a right to enforce all or part of their morals on the others?

Personally I don't have the answers to those questions but I also don't believe answering them is necessary. If reason and logic were really what we (society as a whole) used in thisabortiondebate then we wouldn't even have a debate as there are numerous ways to reduce the number of abortions significantly that reason and logic have already figured out.


Which is why I will reiterate something I said much earlier... I have stopped caring what (most) pro-lifers think about life before birth until they start giving a shit about life after birth.

Am I implying something about majority rule in my posts? I don't think I said anything about the majority should dictate what's right or wrong. Perhaps you're responding to another person?

Anyway, when I say that morals should be judged based on logic and reason from the perspective of the society, I don't mean that whatever most people agree with is right. If that were the case, I'd be a Christian because the majority of the country is. What I mean is who can present the best argument for a decision, using logic and reason.

Edit: also, I don't think you answered my point about what the pregnant woman thinks "in her own mind."

cosmic_cs_sl said:

Edit: also, I don't think you answered my point about what the pregnant woman thinks "in her own mind."

Click to expand...

Can you make it in the form of a question? I thought I answered it but you interpreted my answer differently. Better for you to clarify your point then for me to answer incorrectly.

As to your other point

What I mean is who can present the best argument for a decision, using logic and reason.

Click to expand...

So who decides whose logic and reason is right? What group? And on what basis?
I don't feel that you have proven that aborting a zygote within the first few weeks of a pregnancy is an immoral act.
On the first point that a zygote is life you haven't made the scientific argument as to why the zygote should be the point where human life unquestionably exists. Especially when considering my counter argument where cortex activity and therefore the ability to have counciousness, exists.

On the second point you haven't proven that the point at which you judge the act to be immoral is the overwhelming point at which society also judges it as immoral. I grant that you are arguing for reason and logic as the judge but as of yet you haven't proven how that reason and logic is to be judged so as to give you the superior argument.

Selix_sl said:

So who decides whose logic and reason is right? What group? And on what basis?

Click to expand...

Here's how logic and reason can help in this discussion.

1) I read your post, see below:

If that mother believes for any reason that the baby is/will be DOA then choosing to have anabortionbased on that decision is not an immoral one as IN HER OWN MIND as it is just a collection of dead, semi-dead, and cancerous cells.

Click to expand...

2) You said I'm misinterpreting your post, but how much clearer can it be? Here, I'll break it down into one sentence. If mother believes it's ok = it's not immoral.
3) I tried to show that what a pregnant woman thinks is irrelevant to the actual morality of the decision.
4) You avoided the point by talking about majority rule and percentages.

5) I need you to admit you either misspoke or are wrong because this is my problem with internet discussions. No one ever concedes, and I'm usually the only one who concedes when a good argument is presented.

Cosmic I asked, politely I thought, if you could word it in the form of a question. Now the only question I see in the post above is "how much clearer can I be?" and I wil respond to that single and only question in your post above.

When making a point and wanting a response to part or parts of that point, you could ask a direct question.

We don't have to go back and forth on this as I am happy to respond I just didn't want to cover the issue again when I thought I already had before when I was responding to the question I thought your point was making. You did not think I answered it so...

Can you just word the point you want me to answer in the form of a question ?

Selix_sl said:

Cosmic I asked, politely I though, if you could word it in the form of a question. Now the only question I see in the post above is "how much clearer can I be?" and I wil respond to that single and only question in your post above.

When making a point and wanting a response to part or parts of that point, you could ask a direct question.

We don't have to go back and forth on this as I am happy to resposd I just didn't want to cover the issue again when I thought I already had before when I was responding to the question I thought your point was making.

Anyway can you just word it in the form of a question ?

Click to expand...

No, because in a debate, direction questions are rarely asked. One person presents an argument, then the other person either presents a better one or concedes. Please defend your statement, that's the point of this discussion.

Edit: sorry, it seems as though I'm making the rules of this "debate." My point is that you made a statement. I pointed out that it was wrong, and then you answered by avoiding the subject of my counterargument. I'm not sure what's confusing about what the "question" is. The question is, and has always been, "what are my logical inconsistencies?"

cosmic_cs_sl said:

Also, I already said that it doesn't matter what the pregnant woman thinks, just as it doesn't matter what a psychopath believes when he murders a person. The psychopath's immoral act doesn't dissolve because he thought he was moral. You focus on this "in her own mind" as though only her view matters. What matters is the logic and reason behind the decision (as analyzed by the society - hi, I didn't mention anything about religion, I said reason and logic).

Click to expand...

Selix_sl said:

If 50 + 1 % of the country believes being gay is wrong does that make being gay immoral? 75% What if 51 + 1 % believe the other 49% only count as 3/5ths of a person? This is why I don't like statistics determining morality.

Click to expand...

cosmic_cs_sl said:

Am I implying something about majority rule in my posts? I don't think I said anything about the majority should dictate what's right or wrong. Perhaps you're responding to another person?

Anyway, when I say that morals should be judged based on logic and reason from the perspective of the society, I don't mean that whatever most people agree with is right. If that were the case, I'd be a Christian because the majority of the country is. What I mean is who can present the best argument for a decision, using logic and reason.

Edit: also, I don't think you answered my point about what the pregnant woman thinks "in her own mind."

Click to expand...

Selix_sl said:

As to your other point
So who decides whose logic and reason is right? What group? And on what basis?

Click to expand...

I've included the posts in the order they happened and which I *think* are relevent to this particular point. I note that this may not be what you are looking for but as you are unwilling to ask a question directly then I am unable to answer it. I don't agree with your position that direct questions aren't asked as such a position only serves to keep an issue confused as long as possible instead of getting to the meat of the issue and then moving on. That, however, is irrelevent to this discussion.

The bold relates directly to the point. You say "who can present the best argument for a decision, using logic and reason." I said " who decides whose logic and reason is right? What group? And on what basis?" which relates directly to the majority deciding what is right or wrong as contradicts what you said "Am I implying something about majority rule in my posts? I don't think I said anything about the majority should dictate what's right or wrong. Perhaps you're responding to another person?"

Ok, I realize that maybe I wasn't being clear enough. At this point, I need some sort of resolution on that statement you made about what happens "in her own mind."

If that mother believes for any reason that the baby is/will be DOA then choosing to have anabortionbased on that decision is not an immoral one as IN HER OWN MIND as it is just a collection of dead, semi-dead, and cancerous cells.

Click to expand...

Would you please defend this statement directly? To me, morality is not based on what one individual thinks. Therefore, this statement that essentially states that if a woman believes it's moral to abort, then it's ok, iswrong. Yes, you can bring up other topics, such as "who defines morality" or "what determines a consensus?" But these are different topics. First, I need you to defend this statement alone. Do you think the statement you made is right? If so, please give me some reasons why morality can be based on a single person's beliefs (i.e., the pregnant woman alone).

I have an idea where you are going with this discussion, but I need you to address the statement you made!

Certainly but I don't see this issue. Individuals have morals and groups of individuals have morals. The two are not always the same.

I am not sure how this relates to to topic though.

Selix_sl said:

Certainly but I don't see this issue. Individuals have morals and groups of individuals have morals. The two are not always the same.

I am not sure how this relates to to topic though.

Click to expand...

You said that someone can be morally justified if they alone believe they are morally justified. In that statement, there is no reference to a group. Please defend the statement:

someone can be morally justified if they alone believe they are morally justified

Click to expand...

Which is the crux of this statement:

If that mother believes for any reason that the baby is/will be DOA then choosing to have anabortionbased on that decision is not an immoral one as IN HER OWN MIND as it is just a collection of dead, semi-dead, and cancerous cells.

Click to expand...