That abortion is morally acceptable.

Again you are missing the point. You are making amoral judgment in saying "I dont care because it is not important because they have a right to their own personal space. Things would be much different if, for example, a personal was raping their child. If you didn't care and it "wasn't in your ass" as you put it, it still wouldn't change the moral dilemma that the case poses. In saying that there is a private space of action that should be untouchable you are creating a moral division of what acts SHOULD concern us, that is non-personal. Does this make sense?

You have just said it yourself - it is morally permissible to allow people to act as they choose within their personal sphere. This is a moral judgment in and of itself. Regardless of social values, morality is a field of discussing right and wrong. No matter the fact that conclusions as to what is most moral differ, I believe we can prescribe a set of values that are correct and objectively valid.

 

Rape is forcing one's moral values "it's okay" to someone that consider them "it's wrong" so it isn't a personal issue and of course it has to concern us. I think everybody knows that the personal space is about our body and our personality so why do we need to make a division ?
Say you have a symbiotic organism that gives you immortality and cures all diseases whose choice should be to have it removed and examined or not and should other's have right to judge your thesis if you don't wanna share it ?
Say that this organism demands human brains to sustain itself , is it moral to leave it to your morals or put you under surveillance anyway?
What i am saying is that when it comes to strictly personal stuff it is perfectly moral to use your criteria to judge a situation despite what others may think now when others are affected although your morals should come under consideration it is the common values that normally should prevail. The whole thing with abortions ends up where it started : are foetuses "others" ?

I don't think that we need to set any values , i also don't think that we are objective . We all have set cultural influences , personalities and ideas that will always weight more than the reasoning of the other side . The world is an organic , evolving thing and everything inside it works the same way , what "codes of laws" always bring is an obstacle that sooner or later must be surpassed for matters to evolve farther , we don't want next generations to be like us or having to overcome our dogmas, let the future structure itself free of bindings as we like to structure our present.
Also if we can be correct and objectively valid in our views so can others who disagree with us , thesis and antithesis struggle into a new thesis ....and a new antithesis boxing all our fertile creativity will only result retarded inbreds

 

So it concerns us when it concerns others? How do you draw a distinction without making a moral claim?

You ARE making a division. What you describe as "everyone knowing" is only a recent phenomenon, and even now a lot of people don't subscribe to it. What you seem unable to understand is that this division is itself a moral judgement and set of values.

Holy crap mate, cant you see by saying "it is perfectly moral" - you are talking about MORALITY?!? You first said "oh morals are social values" - yet you then use them to say you apparently reject morality! Can you not see the total hypocrisy of your position?

THEN WHY DO YOU PRESCRIBE THEM ABOVE?!?

Then how cna you possibly say the personal public distinction of rights is valid?

I disagree. We can derive an ethical/moral position from objective evaluations which are not tainted by social forces.

 

So an unconcious individual can be put to death because they have no visible desire to live? One's ability to have an interest in one's survival should not be the argument for whether or not it is ok to kill them.

So the only qualification that demands a mother protect her child is the ability of the child to value it's own life? That is absolutely retarded. First off, who are you to know whether or not a fetus values its own life? By the same token, how does passing through the vaginal canal suddenly impart upon a child the desire to live and thus impune upon the mother the demand to protect the child?

No. The premise is fatally flawed and, quite frankly, retarded.

That makes no sense. What action are you talking about? What value are you saying we give the action?

So far it is nothing but fairly incoherent ramblings about an arbitrary value system you made up to justify killing due to your opinion that that person does not have the ability to value its own life. You cannot take your assertions and apply them to any other part of the life cycle. It is illegal to kill a newborn infant, yet this same infant has no more and no less desire to live. Someone who is unconcious cannot form the thought that they want to live. When they regain conciousness and are asked, they will almost certainly say they value their life, but according to your logic, you can kill them because neither you nor the rest of society somehow magically has a need to protect them. Does that sound right to you? Because that is what you are preaching.

 

Why not?

Correct.

Biology and general science. The brain simply cannot function at that level.

It doesn't. Consciousness emerges a few weeks after birth. The only reason we would want to stop abortions after birth at this time is so people dont mistakenly kill children without realizing they do have self-awareness and a desire to live.

Show me how. Dont just say 'oh its retarded' and run away - show me how it is wrong. Better yet, give an alternative.

Let me put it like this. Let us apply this principle between you and I. Lets say we are stuck on an island and I find some kind of plant. Now some ethicist might say since I found it, its mine, and I can let you do because you were just unlucky. Now if we apply the ethical principle I've described what I would say is, since I want to live and you also want to live, there is no reason to say I should not consider these interests equally, since they are the same. Consequently I ought to use the plant to fulfill both interests to greatest extent possible. So the value is in the equal consideration of interests. Does that make sense now? There is no value to life, or the plant. We only give something value individually, but in doing so must recognize the capacity of others to do the same as in the situation above.

It is not an opinion it is fact. Consciousness is by an large measurable and certainly in the case of the fetus since its actual brain growth can be monitored and then its functionality can be tested after birth.

Try me.

I am not discussing law here.

Yes, it is entirely fine. However the fact that this person may recover consciousness is grounds, imo, to keep them alive, since the outcome is better than simply killing them. This is only in the case of society being able to provide enough resources. In the case where they need the bed or tech or whatever, this option may not be viable. There are also usually other forces at play, like the interests of the family etc who will most likely want to keep them alive, which is perfect grounds to do so. So yes, to kill them there and then would, in and of itself, by morally acceptable. If you think its wrong show me how. Acting like a child with a response like "oh that's retarded" does nothing to show how I am wrong.

 

Thanks for proving you're not working with a full deck. Tell you what. Go out, find someone who is unconcious, kill them, and then try to explain to the judge that it was perfectly OK because you believe someone who is unable to value their life at that moment can be morally killed. If you're lucky you can get off with an insanity plea.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). That is the most stupid, ignorant justification I have ever heard for murder.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) again. There is no way you or anyone else can accuratly say what level a brain at any stage of development is capable of. You playing god by pretending you know when it is or is not morally acceptable to kill someone based on the capabilities of their brain at that point in time shows a serious mental illness, but not a moral justification for murder.

Again you play god and pretend you know the inner workings of the brain. What an ego! A shame there is no truth to your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims.

More bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Again, this is just you trying to pretend your own inner justifications for murder are applicable to everyone. They're not. Your justifications are there for you to try and boost your ego by pretending you know something you obviously have no clue about. Here is a hint. If what you are saying were true, it would be common knowledge that this is why people don't kill babies, yet here you are the only one spouting this nonsense.

I have. The fact you can't understand what other people write isn't my fault. The fact you are trying to justify murder based on your own twisted sense of morality based on a person's congnative ability at the time of the murder shows just how retarded it is. Is it a viable defense in a murder trial? "Gee, Judge. I am pretty sure he was unconcious and unable to value his own life, so I snuffed him" would go over like a lead balloon. The only time it is justified to kill someone based on their lack of will to live is when they are in a vegitative state with no chance of regaining conciousness.

This does nothing to justify the murder of another simply because they are incapable of valuing their own life at that point in time.

"Science" has made many such claims throughout the centuries, yet still cannot be sure of its results. Regardless, it is still a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) justification for murder.

A child knocks himself out playing on the jungle gym. At that point in time, he is unable to value his own life, so, according to you, his life has no value and it is perfectly morally acceptable to off the little bugger. Yet we all know that there is no society where this would be a valid reason to end that kid's life. So go ahead and try and explain how it is justifiable to kill the kid.

Laws are built upon the morals of society. If society finds an act morally reprehensible, laws are built around that act to prevent it. You can just as easily say "It is morally reprehensible in modern society to kill a newborn infant, yet this same infant has no more and no less desire to live. The fact you can't justify it and so hide behind symantics only shows you know your position is indefensible.

Yet the EXACT SAME argument can be made of a fetus. Eventually it is going to have a level of conciousness that even you can't ignore. So why the double standard? I mean besides the fact society would either lock you up or execute you outright for killing an unconcious man.

I don't need to show you're wrong. You do fine all by yourself. I just help the reader see the extent of the ignorance in your posts. You're talking about people who are unconcious and in a vegitative state. I made no such distinction and neither does your arguement. By your retarded logic (and it IS retarded), one should be able to go up to a person, knock them unconcious, and then kill them in cold blood simply because they no longer have the concious ability to value their own life, thus rendering that life worthless. Since this whole debate is on the moral grounds, and morality is defined by the generally accepted mores of society, not the twisted justifications of the individual no matter HOW much they worship themselves, and since society defines your justification for murder as murder, you have failed to prove a moral reasoning for abortion because your moral reasoning does not work in society anywhere outside the womb except when a person has no viable future. The one thing you cannot argue is that a fetus does not have a viable future.

 

I see, so I was right, you cant actually prove me wrong. Thanks for playing.

Yeah see, you need to do more than just start crying like a baby to win a debate. Try again.

LOL! You;ve obviously never heard of modern science. Do some reading, its not hard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development

Its quite sad you think doctors cant find out the stages of development of a baby's brain. Funnier still how your own defence of your ignorance "oh that's bull(*)(*)(*)(*)". LOL Hilarious

bahaha of course

You keep telling yourself that and I'll continue to stand unchallenged.

Where? No you just got upset. You havent actually shown how it wrong. Repeatedly saying "bull(*)(*)(*)(*)" doesnt cut it.

Why?

Why not?

Prove it. Show me the medical evidence that we cannot be sure of a fetus' mental capacities.

How so?

Well no since he has parents who will want to see him. Furthermore he is likely make a recovery to killing him is just stupid. If you get knocked out you may still have maximum brian function, or you may have brain damage. Consciousness is not restricted to being awake, it also entails the capacity of the brain.

It is not something I endorse.

Again, I dont care what society thinks. Morality should and can be justified on an objective basis. Outside of that, it is meaningless and useless.

Wrong.

There is a huge difference - the fetus is in the womb of a woman. It is in the care, thus dominated by, the interests of the mother. The unconscious man is in the care and protection of his family and/or the state. Furthermore the mental capacities of the man may be high, whilst those the fetus are always miniscule. Get it yet? You probably dont. Shame.

bahahaha! fail. Yeah I didnt think you could prove me wrong. Typical lifer. Just call everything bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and run away.

You have not understood my ethical position at all. You have just manipulated it in order to convince yourself its just too bad to be talked about. Pathetic. I'm not even going to correct the tripe you have written above. Killing a fetus is entirely moral. You have yet to disprove this claim let alone challenge it. When you want to discuss ethics, by all means I'll be waiting, but I wont pander to your childish swearing and endorse it as a valid form of debate.

 

I don't need to prove you wrong. It is a known social more that murdering someone is wrong. Justifying it by claiming they were unable to value their own life at the time and thus their life had no value doesn't cut it with anyone.

You mean more than your one word response?

Nothing in there supports your position that a fetus is incapable of conciousness. You're going to have to do better than a wiki article if you want to convince everyone that a fetus cannot be concious.

Laugh all you want. You still have not proven it is impossible for a fetus to not be concious of its own life. While doctors can identify the stages of development, not one person has ever been able to identify exactly when conciousness occurs in a child. You, in your infinite arrogance, assume that it cannot be until weeks after birth, so the fetus and even newborns are fair game to kill because they have no value.

Glad you agree.

The empty boasting of an empty shell. Did I hit a nerve when I pointed out that you are pretty much the only one backing your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims? Morals are built on the common values of society. You coming up with a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) justification you can't back up and that nobody else agrees with doesn't prove morality. It proves you have no clue about what morals are.

Wrong yet again. Is it lonely there in denial land?

Because society as a whole has declared it so either tacitly or through laws. You don't understand such simple concepts? That explains a lot.

Is that all you are capable of? Asking why or why not instead of debating the topic? Figures. It is not for me to tell you why not. It is morally wrong in today's society to follow through on your claims. If you wish to justify it, go right ahead. Everyone reading this knows it is not morally right to murder someone just because they are incapable of valuing their own life. It is your claim, not mine. YOU defend it. I am not going to try and defend it for you because it is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty point to begin with.

Now you're trying to get me to prove a negative? Wow. Your desperation is really smelling up the place!

Already explained that. You weren't even able to address it. Sucks to be you, doesn't it!

When did this become part of the argument? By this new facet of your argument, if ANYONE values the person in question then it is morally wrong to murder them. Wasn't it your opening statement that it is between the mother and the fetus and since the mother values life and not the fetus that the mother wins and can be morally justified in killing the fetus? Why the double standard now?

By recover you mean gain conciousness. Isn't it the usual course of events for a fetus to gain conciousness at some point? You have just proven that killing a fetus is stupid. But that isn't what we are debating here. We are debating the moral justification of murder of a fetus, yet you now admit that your premise is stupid as a "recovery" makes the murder stupid.

If you get knocked out you have no conciousness. That is why it is called being unconcious. Try to follow along here. You also, by definition, do NOT have maximum brain function as you are unable to do anything (including think) that isn't controlled by reflex.

Yet when one is unconcious (knocked out) this capacity for "conciousness" of the brain is temporarily suspended.

So how does that relate to abortion? If carrying a baby to term endangers a mothers life and you have to choose between the two, that is one thing. Is this the case in every abortion? Hardly. So why does one have proper grounds in one instance (abortion) but not proper grounds in other instances (knocked out). Isn't that the very definition of a double standard?

Who asked you to endorse it? I asked you to explain your justification given the parameters you've set up and the scenario I gave where your justification would make it morally acceptable to kill the kid. Try to keep up. You're falling behind.

Wow. You SERIOUSLY need to find out what morals are. Morals are based on society PERIOD. Morals cannot be objective because morals are built on the history and culture of a society. What one society finds morally acceptable, another society might find morally reprehensible. Societies with differing morals can be separated by location, culture and even time. Morals by their very nature are subjective and not objective. Most rational human beings understand this simple concept. Trying to pretend one can objectively dictate the morals of a society is nothing more than megalomania run rampant.

For someone who is constantly whining about supposed one word replies, you sure give a lot of them. So instead of just saing wrong, how about you get off your high horse and tell us how the argument for a fetus is different?

Accoring to this retarded logic, the dominant care giver has the power of life and death over the person in their care regardless of morals. If the family decides to off the unconcious man because the man is in their home and under their protection, does that make it morally justified? No, it does not. Does it make the state morally justified in ending the unconcious person's life simply because they can and regardless of the feelings of others? No. So why should a woman have the power of life and death over a fetus IN HER CARE when you yourself make the case that other people's opinions count when dealing with someone's life when they are incapable of valuing their own life? Again, you have a major double standard going here.

This blatant lie proves your dishonesty and that you are not here to debate but to try and prove your superiority over others. You were right about the fail. It is all yours.

A shame you can't even express yourself in a grammatically correct way. Regardless, I have refuted your claims and even shown where you have a double standard going according to the groundwork of your own justification.

Bottom line. The "objective" justification you give is based entirely on your subjective views on the value of a fetus. It is YOU who believe the fetus has no value based on YOUR values, not societie's. Many, if not most, in society value a fetus even if at some point it does not have conciousness. Once a life is given value, by your own justification, it is sacrosanct and should not be killed. You pretend the only person who's opinion matters is the mother, yet you have no real objective reasoning for this opinion either. Again it is based on your own subjective viewpoints on who has what rights. Nothing is uglier than an opinion people try to pass off as objective but is actually subjective. And yes, that is a subjective opinion. Mine. Others probably share this view.

 

haha, of course

How is what I proposed murder?

Why not?

...?...

Consciousness, or more specifically and importantly self-awareness, develop after birth. Check any leading medical journal and they will tell you:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise
This is also handy:
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~tripmcc/phil/cmsi/csmi-abortion/tooley-abortionandinfanticide.pdf

You are very ignorant it seems.

Cant understand sarcasm either? Not surprising.

No, I dont recall reading that. And no I'm not the only one there are plenty of people who advocate this position.

So you believe all morality is relative to society?

Where am I wrong?

So you think society's opinion is all that matters?

Asking why IS debating thew topic. If you say I am wrong you need to show why.

Why?

So what? Why should that matter? Are you saying actions like the holocaust were ok because the society they occurred in condoned it? Strange position that.

I already have, repeatedly.

Why?

I have already defend it. What I want you to do is defend your own position, ie justify why you say it is wrong.

So you are admitting that it is determinable? Finally.

Where?

Where?

No. Go back and read what I have written.

Correct.

Where is the double standard?

That they already had, yes.

How is that?

What is the fetus "recovering" from? Also, in whose womb is the man in the hospital curled up in? You really need to think this through. Read carefully.

 

If you have the capacity to think but are unable to do so, it could be due to some external trauma or force, like shock. This does mean you dont have the capacity of consciousness or self-awareness rather that you cannot act out these abilities. If you are doomed to such incapacitated state then there is no real reason to be kept alive. If you can recover then their is plenty of reason to keep you alive given those who do consent to it.

No, the capacity may still exist, it could be any serious of medical complications preventing them from utilizing this ability. A fetus has no such capacity. If you take it out of the womb it will still be incapable of any consciousness.

Understand that I am not opposed to the latter, rather that the conditions of the situation are much different. For one there are several interests involved alongside various other externalizes, such as the nature of their condition, the extent of their ailments, the repercussions of their death, who is providing for their care, etc etc. As I said before, if we take a boy or man or whatever and say they became unconscious, that is in a state of complete unawareness and it was decided for whatever reason that they should die, then in that instance, disregarding all other externalities and implications, the physical killing of that personal would be ok. The reality is however that there are a multitude of other factors that shape action to have a different outcome. Your problem is that for its a be all and all - if its ok to kill an unconscious person we can kill any and everyone who is so, which is neither the reality of the principle nor of real life. The point here is that the act of killing someone who has no self-awareness or notion of their existence is in and of itself ok. The problem is that situations involving this are never this clear cut - abortion however, usually is.

I already went through it. In real life there are a number of factors at play. If you want to talk about real world action, I attempted to give nuanced approach. If you want a clear cut assessment, yes killing a child who has no capacity to comprehend his own existence is fine. If you think this is morally outrageous, or as you are fond of saying "bull(*)(*)(*)(*)" go ahead and explain why.

No. You are clueless here it seems:

mo·ral·i·ty
   [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties for 4–6.
1.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2.
moral quality or character.
3.
virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4.
a doctrine or system of morals.
5.
moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality

notice how society was not mentioned once? haha you're ignorance is amusing.

Wrong. Morals can be this BUT they can also be based on purely objective reasoning. If you believe what you have just said how cna you say I am wrong and you are right, since this would mean, raping women would be perfectly moral as long as society said it was. Do you really believe that? I pity you if you do.

If you believe this, how cna you pass any judgment on any action if they are relative to time and space?

See above and below and past comments.

How is it retarded logic? Shouldn't you say "moral position relative to time and space". You are a total hypocrite.

Yep.

Why not? Why is it not morally justified?

WHY NOT?

HOW CAN YOU SAY MY POSITION IS MORALLY WRONG WHEN YOU THINK ALL MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE? Where do you get off with this hypocrisy?

There is no double standard. To answer your question, because the fetus is in the woman's body.

How is it a lie? All you have done is say "is it wrong? no". That is not an argument. I might as well just say "is abortion ok? yes" and leave it at that.

Do you want me to point out your spelling errors? Grow up.

Where? No you jsut asked questions, got upset when you received the answers and then responded to everything by saying 'that's bull(*)(*)(*)(*)'. Pathetic.

You did no such thing.

Not at all. See the OP.

Yes I do and have given it repeatedly - its in her womb.

I don't see why you bother if everything is subjective. This would render your own assessment of right and wrong totally useless.

 

Freedom isn't about morals , as i posted above what you do with yourself is your own business .

Integral parts of social life like do not harm others are in most cases not morality related .

I reject morality as a blanket that covers everyone the same way, i have my own understanding of good and bad and you have yours , why should my understanding forced into you even if it is "objectively valid" ? This way we also have the chance to compare , argue and reshape our positions .

I don't prescribe anything , we have our personal sets that will run out when our lives end and we follow the social contract that allows us to live in peace , we don't harm each other, we don't steal or spread bad rumours simple rules who allow society to exist in the first place so (multi-level) morals can be created .

Because it can be no other way , a world full of people with forced behaviours would be a world full of sociopaths. There is no point to have social life if it's burden makes us be something we don't like , there is no point to live a life where you can not be who you wanna be but made into something you hate.

Interesting you said that , you think that you can sit on a table and undress all the social norms you carry inside you i think not.
Have you ever tried to write a song , make a painting or compose poetry ? If you have you will know that the influences that surface there are very surprising because you never knew they existed , they are there and pull you into different directions shaping who you are , the way you think and the way you evaluate reality so how you can ever be objective about anything?

Apologies for late reply , we are in different time zones

 

Why not? How do you define freedom if not with moral principles?

Why is that? Do you not see that is a moral judgment?

How so? Actually they are not just morally related they ARE morality.

If we reject morality we reject all of this, since there is no reason to have any distinction of private and public.

Yes you do - you prescribe a private/public dichotomy - that is a moral position.

But all of these codes of conduct are moral positions! Let me put it this way, if there is no such thing as right and wrong, ie morality is all relative as you describe, how can you say ANY act is right or wrong.

But you have already forced a behavior through a division of private and public.

And how do you reach this conclusion?

You may think it, but that doesnt make it so.

Yes, with varied success.

Easy - think rationally. Thinking critically is all you require. You appear to be significantly hampered in that you cannot apply this to your own world view.

No worries.

 

First of all, i congratulate you because this is the first post that i have ever seen defending abortion that isn't full of (*)(*)(*)(*) and logical fallacies.
And the morality of murder isn't really my area but i will try to contribute...

We can safely say that a fetus is an organism that will, unlike a tree, have self-conscious in the not so distant future in the case it doesn't die. That is, in my opinion, a crucial difference because we can't just look at the current state of the individual. If we did, I'm sure there are many situation where adult people also lose, temporarily or permanently, self-consciousness and i think you would agree that a temporarily lack of self-consciousness doesn't justify killing the person in question.

Also i have a question: What does an organism do when it doesn't want to live anymore and is any life form except humans even capable of wanting to stop living?

P.S. I have no idea if my post is grammatically correct.

 

Thanks mate.

That would be a fair defense there is only one problem. In the instance a fetus is such, it is in the womb of a woman. Hence in action around the fetus we can only consider two interests - that of the mother and fetus. Since the fetus has none, its up to the mother. If we use the potential argument we can potentially say a man masturbating is committing genocide. There is only one thing the fetus has which must be considered and that is the ability to feel pain and pleasure. So one should seek to minimize the pain a fetus must endure when being killed - something that is unfortunately overlooked.

Sorry I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you saying cellular life is equivalent to consciousness and self-awareness?

 

Is it really fair to say that the fetus doesn't have an interest to live? Isn't it inherent in all beings to want to survive? A mans masturbation might be a genocide of semen, but you can also argue that brushing teeth is genocide of bacteria. It makes no sense.

Not at all. I am asking if it is possible.

 

I didnt make them that way. It might not be "fair" (could you define the word?) but it is morally acceptable. I personally wouldn't kill a fetus because I dont much like killing anything, but as I say its not up to me its up to the mother.

No. Its the "to want" part that only is capable amongst beings with a certain level of consciousness - something a fetus does not poses.

Well no, in the case of potentiality my point is, why stop at conception? Why not go right to semen, since they also have the potential to be human, do they not?

If what is possible? Sorry but I'm not quite sure what your original question actually was.

 

It is morally acceptable to kill an adult human who temporarily loses self-consciousness? Because the fetus' lack of consciousness is only a temporary condition. It's important to keep in mind that a fetus is the same organism as a toddler, just in a different time frame.

But the fact that the fetus is living and growing can be seen as an expression of its desire to live.

Because i wasn't talking about potentiality. Semen will never have self-consciousness while a fetus is a term that describes a specific stage in life of a human being which while not having self-consciousnesses in that specific time frame will develop it as part of a normal life cycle.

Is it morally acceptable to kill a dog? How does a dog express it's desire to live if it has one?

 

That's a complex question, but on that superficial basis, I'll just say no, since it is about his capacities as well. A fetus has no capacity to have consciousness - an adult does, they are just suffering injury at the point you describe. In reality of course, in applying the principle I describe, there are also a number of factors in play.

Well no, its the same as a baby after a few weeks in terms of consciousness - not a toddler, who has self-awareness. But yes the principle persists.

No, it cant because an "expression of a desire to live" requires a conscious mind which a fetus does not have.

But a sperm cell is an organism that is part of the human life cycle that could have self-consciousness in the future - same thing.

Well, no.

Well a dog, I recall reading a study about this, does exhibit clear tendencies demonstrating consciousness and self-awareness, as present in the ability to communicate and identify itself as an independent entity.

 

I did not mean in terms of consciousness. I'm am saying that it's the same person/organism/being etc... In light of that i definitely do not consider it moral to kill a human who currently doesn't have self-consciousness just because it has not had the necessary time to acquire it.

Sorry, that's just not true. A sperm cell will combine with the egg cell to create a new being which will have self-consciousness. You can track the beginning of your life to the zygote, not the sperm cell.

That's fine but how does it express it's desire to live?

 

Why?

So you did not originate from a sperm cell? Sorry but you can take it all the way back to a sperm cell. Your argument can only stop at the zygote based on an arbitrary notion of potentiality.

Well by the very fact it is alive. Animals cna become depressed, which can be picked up, but animals, if they reach such a stage where do not want to live often die outright, like dogs which you brought up. I'm sure you've heard of the stories of dogs dying when their beloved masters die?

 

Because it is a temporary condition through which we all had to get through. Is it acceptable or moral to you that you could have been killed before you developed enough to gain self-consciousness?

It's not potentiality, i was not a sperm cell but i was a zygote. You can take it all the way back to your grand grand fathers sperm cell but the fact remains that there is a point when i came into existence and began to grow and develop.

By that i also conclude that the fetus has an desire and interest to live.

 

Yes but that doesn't give me a reason or principle behind how I (or the mother etc) should act in relation to abortion.

If it was my mother's interest, yes.

Ok so why should a right to life begin there?

Sorry I note I've simplified my thought way too poorly in the first line, so disregard it. What I meant by the first lien is that, by simple observation, you can see an animal like a dog is clearly conscious and self-aware. If you apply this criteria to the fetus, no there is no right to life for the fetus.

 

You are basically saying that it's acceptable to kill someone because he doesn't have the capacity to express a desire to live, which we can assume he inherently has, even though the person in question will develop that capacity.
Do you at least accept that the fetus has an interest to live?

I guess convenience is a good enough reason?

Because that is the moment when the individuals life begins. You might argue about when ensoulment occurs thought i doubt it's scientifically possible to determine. Biologically it's a open and shut case.

Ok...so do you have another answer about how a dog expresses it's desire to live?

 

Being able to develop and actually possessing such capacities is the key difference.

But it doesnt because it is not even aware of its own existence.

Basically, but I would personally advice people not be so loose with themselves. Regardless, if her reason is simply convenience that is morally permissible.

I didnt ask when you think "life" beings I asked: Why should a right to life begin there?

I think its quite self evidence in its ability to exhibit traits of self awareness, dont you?
I think this article would better at succinctly making my point:
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm
Its a little long, but its worth the read I think.I realize this online version has sections cut out, so tell me if it avoids discussing the determining of consciousness amongst animals and I will try and find another version. I think the point should still be clear however.

 

But you said earlier that the capacity to posses is the key difference and not actually possessing it. And i argued that looking at just one time frame isn't prudent when we want to assess the individuals capabilities.

I think you misunderstood me so i'll reformulate. Is it in the fetus' interest to live?

It's not an opinion and i used "life" in the sense of

A right to life should begin there because it is the earliest point when we can grant it. There is a consensus in this society that the killing one human because that might be in the interest of another human isn't justified. That is why a typical abortionist will therefore argue that a fetus isn't human and will make a fool out of himself, or he might chose an arbitrary reason why he shouldn't be considered human. (it doesnt breathe!!!11) So kudos to you for attacking the consensus.

Not really. How does a dogs awareness of it's existence expresses it's desire to live? I don't like the article, it claims we're animals but then argues that we shouldn't eat meat although that's what omnivores do. I do agree that we should not make any being suffer. And I'm a speciesist btw. A cows life has little meaning except feeding, reproducing and dying, we're giving it a noble purpose.