Abortion: Legal or Illegal

Equality 7-2521 wrote: You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you?

I have said before that I find the concept of a natural right to be kind of a weird thing. I do not believe in a creator or an afterlife or anything like that, so I can't say anything is imbued with a right at the outset of its existence. If humans did not exist, the entire concept of a "right" would not exist. There would only be the natural order. No one would be there to think about morality.  What I am willing to say is that it's probably a good idea to minimize pain in the world. Most animals, or at least those with nervous systems (citation needed) can feel pain, and in the grand scheme of things I don't see why we should say animal pain is less worthy of limiting than human pain. Of course I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat. Maybe one day I'll make the switch.

I suppose I would describe myself as a person with a highly tuned sense of morality who cannot find a reason to accept that there is an absolute standard of morality. I've read Kant and still I cannot find a ground to decry someone else for coming to a different conclusion about a moral action. It's not that I don't personally think they'd be wrong, it's that given the subjective nature of each person's assessment of the situation granted no ultimate authority, creator, or providence, all I can really do is disagree.

I understand why religion can be important. Being certain about these kind of things can be very healthy for a society, even if ultimately they are mistaken.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you? I have said before that I find the concept of a natural right to be kind of a weird thing. I do not believe in a creator or an afterlife or anything like that, so I can't say anything is imbued with a right at the outset of its existence. If humans did not exist, the entire concept of a "right" would not exist. There would only be the natural order. No one would be there to think about morality.  What I am willing to say is that it's probably a good idea to minimize pain in the world. Most animals, or at least those with nervous systems (citation needed) can feel pain, and in the grand scheme of things I don't see why we should say animal pain is less worthy of limiting than human pain. Of course I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat. Maybe one day I'll make the switch. I suppose I would describe myself as a person with a highly tuned sense of morality who cannot find a reason to accept that there is an absolute standard of morality. I've read Kant and still I cannot find a ground to decry someone else for coming to a different conclusion about a moral action. It's not that I don't personally think they'd be wrong, it's that given the subjective nature of each person's assessment of the situation granted no ultimate authority, creator, or providence, all I can really do is disagree. I understand why religion can be important. Being certain about these kind of things can be very healthy for a society, even if ultimately they are mistaken. Just seems like you might give the same considerations to an almost human than you would to a dog even ignoring a rights viewpoint.

Pretty true, which is why I've been harping on about not aborting after the point in which a fetus feels pain. I'm not sure if there's a scientific consensus about that, or if it has a specific trimester, or whatever. I just don't think all stages of life should be given equal consideration. I can't imagine a cluster of cells and think, "What a beautiful human life just beginning!" It just doesn't resonate with me like that. Apparently it does with a lot of people.

stonebeard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you? I have said before that I find the concept of a natural right to be kind of a weird thing. I do not believe in a creator or an afterlife or anything like that, so I can't say anything is imbued with a right at the outset of its existence. If humans did not exist, the entire concept of a "right" would not exist. There would only be the natural order. No one would be there to think about morality.  What I am willing to say is that it's probably a good idea to minimize pain in the world. Most animals, or at least those with nervous systems (citation needed) can feel pain, and in the grand scheme of things I don't see why we should say animal pain is less worthy of limiting than human pain. Of course I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat. Maybe one day I'll make the switch. I suppose I would describe myself as a person with a highly tuned sense of morality who cannot find a reason to accept that there is an absolute standard of morality. I've read Kant and still I cannot find a ground to decry someone else for coming to a different conclusion about a moral action. It's not that I don't personally think they'd be wrong, it's that given the subjective nature of each person's assessment of the situation granted no ultimate authority, creator, or providence, all I can really do is disagree. I understand why religion can be important. Being certain about these kind of things can be very healthy for a society, even if ultimately they are mistaken. Just seems like you might give the same considerations to an almost human than you would to a dog even ignoring a rights viewpoint. Pretty true, which is why I've been harping on about not aborting after the point in which a fetus feels pain. I'm not sure if there's a scientific consensus about that, or if it has a specific trimester, or whatever. I just don't think all stages of life should be given equal consideration. I can't imagine a cluster of cells and think, "What a beautiful human life just beginning!" It just doesn't resonate with me like that. Apparently it does with a lot of people.

There certain people I don't think qualify as beautiful human life. Does that mean it's okay to kill them? Because I don't feel for them? There may be legitimate arguments for supporting abortion. But "the fetus does nothing for me" is hardly one of them.

himtroy wrote: Epignosis wrote: If I own an airplane, and mid-flight a passenger becomes unwanted, may I then throw him out? If your passenger is a chemical equation inside of somebody who doesn't think/feel then yes.

We're all just chemical equations. Everything's made of atoms. What makes one group of atoms more (or less) significant than another?

^ I think Stonebeard is merely reiterating (similar to Equality) that he cannot understand why some people would source their opinion on abortion based on an emotional/aesthetic response. To infer from his post that he sanctions the killing of  people he does not 'care' for is frankly preposterous.


Edited by ExittheLemming - November 04 2011 at 15:11

ExittheLemming wrote: ^ I think Stonebeard is merely reiterating (similar to Equality) that he cannot understand why some people would source their opinion on abortion based on an emotional/aesthetic response. To infer from his post that he sanctions the killing of  people he does not 'care' for is frankly preposterous.

I just trying to show the logical conclusion of such a line of thinking is all. I don't actually think stoney is a sociopath. You just gotta be careful how you justify your actions or you may open the door for situations and circumstances you never thought of.

Read "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals" sometime. It's a good read.


Edited by Deathrabbit - November 04 2011 at 15:26

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Pat, I don't know where your signature comes from, "Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned."   but the French equivalent goes along this: Educatuion is what's left after you've forgotten everything you've learned   Which is of course pretty close...   ------------------   Foetus can't live on their own (this means without a mother's assistance or scientific/medical help), so they don't count as a living  being >> it is  simply not a viable form of life as it stands at that stage....     You can't live on your own. You're dependent on countless other living organisms for oxygen, water, and nutrition. I believe the quote is attributed to Twain. But academics seem to just attribute every saying originating roughly in the 19th century in America to Twain regardless  a lack of evidence so who knows. I like the French version too. How is it said in French?

Edited by Sean Trane - November 04 2011 at 16:01

Sean Trane wrote: Yeah, if you wish (I know your taste for the last word in a debate, and since I'm in a good mood, I'll let you have it, this time!!!)...   but let's face it, the foetus doesn't even know how or is incapable of surviving on its own for more than three seconds outisde its womb... this is why it's an integral part of the woman's body.... and therefore HER choice   ----------------       l'éducation, c'est ce qu'il reste, quand on a oublié tout ce qu'on a appris....

I'm not trying to have the last word. I wouldn't even say I'm in this debate. I'm not really interested in it. I'm just throwing in things here and there.

We're all dependent on things to survive on our own. The fetus is tied to one specific person. We're tied to a variety of other living organisms. I don't see much of a different down at the core. We're all a part of a much larger system.

Thank you for the french.

Even better!