₦airaland Forum

hahn:
These are all non living things

troll

tintingz:
You're begin to attack fallacy, the discussion in this thread is about abortion, fetus, human not plants or animals.

Actually, this is simply showing the reduction ad absurdium of your argument as rebutted.

You said: When the brain is alive, when the entity is functioning as a complete human being.

And this was easily refuted by showing that doesn't determine what being alive means.

And i further asked what a "human being is"

Kindly, provide your reference establishing the living of a fetus.

Oh that is exactly what i want to do by asking you "What it means to be alive"

If you are able to biologically determine what being alive means, it becomes obvious what is alive and what is not.

tintingz:
It's not globally condemned because we still have like 1.6 billion of Muslims in the world that believe in the sharia, killing apostates, homos, adulterers is not murder to them.

There are applications surrounding what should be term murder and what should not, depending on the society.

Some countries legalized abortion while some don't.

So is abortion globally condemned?

Actually, murder has one definition and that is "premeditated termination of a human life"

I am not talking about the legality behind abortion but the moral permissibility.

At a time, killing an apostate is a way of making heaven in Christian doctrine. They did not change the definition of murder, they simply changed the spiritual implication.

Such is the application with Islamic societies. Murder as a concept is absolute.

tintingz:
It's not yet a fact, it's still a debate establishing when a fetus is alive.

Please, what does it mean to be alive?

When the brain is alive, when the entity is functioning as a complete human being.

Wait, what?

What do you mean by the term "human being"?

I'm waiting for your part.

What do you mean by brain being alive?

If i give examples of animals without brain, should we then conclude based on your definition that they are not alive?

is a plant alive?

Is an amoebe alive?

This will be fun

darkchild64:
I have repeated this several times, the effect on those directly considered is what is considered not just the effect on one person or group,in this case the mother and the fetus are the parties directly involved,the mother wishes to terminate the life of the fetus,I would rather consider the feelings of a grown woman than a 10cm fetus that doesn't have any mentality and emotions when considering who suffers more harm,if the pregnancy is kept against the mothers wish,the mother suffers, the fetus if eventually born would suffer as well and if not raised well as is most likely the case for unwanted pregnancies might end up becoming a vice to the society, so in terms of risk benefit ratio,abortion has more benefits

But none the less, the fetus is the one who suffers the ultimate harm which is death.

A day old born baby is mentally or emotionally almost inactive, shouldn't mothers also have the moral permissibility to kill them?

Why stop there?

We could conclude it is morally permissible for women to throw babies out in toilets and trashbins as we see everyday since such actions has more benefits given your logic above.

Ok, this is another argument,maybe we would discuss mor on this later

ok

So what u are basically saying is that if in these circumstances you cited,there is more benefit in killing the child,well I disagree with you,it would cause more harm to the child than the benefit the parents get

Why and how does it cause more harm to the child?

That is the slippery slope you have created above.

LordReed:
I like to judge the morality of an action on this: what impact does it have on the survival/wellbeing of society and/or the individuals that make it up. Abortion, I would say is morally permissible in this light because it could provide for the well being of the mother. Now there are other cases in which it would be detrimental to society, say for instance if humanity is facing eminent extinction due to infertility and a dwindled population, an abortion would be highly immoral under such circumstances. So yes the context in which an action will be taken will affect the morality of that action but with reference to the effect on wellbeing and survival.

if a man who has a daughter is finding it hard to feed his child, is fed up of having a daughter, based on your argument it should be morally permissible to kill such a child.

A woman whose life is being ruined because she has a son is morally permitted to kill such a son.

She is doing herself a favor by liberating herself and putting her life back on track, saving the child a world of poverty and hunger and doing the society a favor by removing more less potential criminal or mouth to feed.

These are morally permissible too?

Because that is the problem with such a conclusion, it opens a ground where it can be taken further.

darkchild64:
did you see where I said that the harm and good is considered for those most directly involved,the person being killed is being caused the ultimate harm which is death,now compare the harm done to this person to the benefit over 7 billion persons would receive it would be obviously too negligible,so more harm is done than good hence it is wrong.
However in certain circumstances it may be of more profit to a large number of people to cause ultimate harm to one person,that is why Achilles dueled with Boagrius to stop the siege on Thessaly,if the effect of taking one live would cause more benefit than the harm suffered by the person then it is morally permissible,the question should be how do we ascertain that the benefits is greater than the risk

So, the baby killed isn't being caused the ultimate harm which is death?

And i think a good done to a majority weighs better than individual good.

why do you think so ?

Breaking that down would be quite an article. But the conclusion is, both cases ultimately lands to "What i feel is good'

Example A:
Why is A good? because i feel like it.

Example B:
Why is A good? Because it makes Mr Y feel better.
Why is making Mr Y good?

elaborate

If anyone can define what morality it, morality becomes meaningless since it is subject to unlimited range of individual meanings. Such meaning is arbitrary.

For morality and any word in fact to make sense or have a meaning, it must be dependent on a meaning agreed or determined by an intersubjective belief of people.

I think there is an article on Martinez39's thread i elaborated on the nature of morality

I have already stated my basis of determining what is right or wrong,so its either you do not agree with my perspective or you claim that abortions do more harm than good
Summary of my argument
1) I regard an act as morally right if it causes more satisfaction or happiness than dissatisfaction or sadness to those most directly involved
2) I think abortion causes more good than harm considering its effect on the mother, fetus,father and the society
3)On these basis I consider assisted abortion to be morally permissible
If you disagree,you have to fault any of the premises above,my view of morality is clearly stated above,I don't conform to any other

Your conclusion creates a slippery slope: Because if a man who has a daughter is finding it hard to feed his child, is fed up of having a daughter, based on your argument it should be morally permissible to kill such a child.

A woman whose life is being ruined because she has a son is morally permitted to kill such a son.

She is doing herself a favor by liberating herself and putting her life back on track, saving the child a world of poverty and hunger and doing the society a favor by removing more less potential criminal or mouth to feed.

Your moral determinant is a slippery slope.

Scrolling through the frontpage of nairaland i stumbled upon a story;

Man killed his daughter as a sacrifice to God https://www.nairaland.com/4860359/photos-man-killed-baby-sacrifice

I wondered where i have heard this story before. Oh yes, the father of faith Abraham attempted to murder his son on this same note.

Anyone who reads the man's story above would be abhorred at the horror of conceiving such a thought but ironically would praise Abraham on his virtue as a man of faith.

- wasn't this man just as much virtuous and pious as Abraham?

- Wasn't Abraham guilty of similar abhorrence?

On what ground can a christian chastise the man above and excuse Abraham?

tintingz:
Dude you said a fetus is alive (something that's still a debate and not concluded in science) , why not tell us how a fetus is a personhood with references.

Yes. I said a Fetus is alive and it is in fact is. And i also said a Fetus is a human at fetal stage.

Wait, Personhood and being alive are two different things, please don't conflate both, they are not even remotely similar.

So, you ask me to demonstrate why i think a fetus is a alive, so i first asked to establish what you think being alive means. You are yet to tell me.

I am waiting though, it will make it easy for you to understand.

tintingz:
Johnydon22, you talked about murder being universally immoral, you forgot the applications surrounding it.

Nope. I did not.

I said; Human morality agrees that 'murder' is wrong and this is contingent on the human belief about the sacredness of human life.

Muslims believe stoning adulterers or fornicators, killing apostates, homosexuals to death is morally good because their religious manuscript said so, is thier action a murder case?

I am pretty sure those actions are morally abhorrable and are globally condemned. Can muslims stone a fornicator or an apostate in America? No. They can only do it in an enclosed society where they have absolute authority.

tintingz:
Dude just provide your source that talked about fetus being alive.

Oh no, asking me to provide such source is like asking me to provide a source that says "a human is alive" there countless sources but i'd rather break it down.

When you say something is alive, what do you mean?

If we establish what we mean by something being alive, we can easily say if a Fetus is alive or not. we can easily say if a baby is alive or not, we can easily say if an amoeba or any single celled organism is alive or not.

So, the first question is: What is a living thing?

The point is even a robber knows stealing from him is wrong, we don't know the conscious state of a fetus, the suffering of a rape victim is unwanted if she doesn't want to carry it.

If a robber thinks otherwise, does it make it right?

What action? That a fetus is not wanted?

Nope. that human life has been terminated which in fact is the definition of 'murder'

Dude, just tell us how a fetus is alive, a personhood with sources.

Exactly that is why the first question is "What does it mean to be alive?"

darkchild64:
Well Johnny,I don't consider fetuses as humans because they do not possess the qualities that humans do especially the basic ones,

Is "human" a quality or a biological classification because we need to establish that and find out which one of us is wrong in our definition.

but you do,well let's agree to disagree,even if fetuses are also classified as humans I still think it is morally right for a woman to abort a fetus.

Cool. we will see if it is.

Now going back to the first thing I said on this thread,taking human lives is not inherently right or wrong,it all depend on the circumstances involved.By my own standards,I see something as "wrong" if it causes more harm than good to those most directly involved,and as "right" if the reverse is the case.In the scenario,sentiments aside I think the supposed mother, father and the entire society would benefit more if abortion is allowed than if it is disallowed,so this is my basis for saying it is moral,if it were to proven to me that allowing abortions would do more harm than good to the people involved then that makes it wrong for me, given the conditions you cite.

Following this logic; Killing you could reduce world population by 1 and thus help in reducing resource depletion.

Should we agree that based on this good that can be derived from killing you or anyone; Murder is good?

I believe you are not religious so you can relate to this,there is no moral codes written by nature,it is us humans that determine if something is right and is to be accepted or wrong,as far as I am concerned there are only two major ways people arrive at deciding what is Moral or not
1) Intuition this is very broad and I also classify most religious laws in this category because they were made by men and its obvious a lot of them are ridiculous,a lot of laws we find in our legislation are also made through intuition. This is basically saying that something is right because we feel or "our conscience tells us" that its right
2)Reason when you determine morality based on reasoning u judge something to be right or wrong based on the risk benefit ratio,a thing is right of under the conditions or circumstance that they occur they cause more good or happiness than wrong

This two methods doesn't sound all that different though

I must say that none of the two methods can perfectly elucidate morality,but I think the second comes close to it,noow its left for everyone to decide how s/he defines morality,

Actually No. Morality is not contingent on individual definitions or it is meaningless.

but like I said there is no moral code written anywhere in the universe,human beings choose for themselves what is right or wrong,either doing so subjectively and going by intuition or objectively and going with reason

Intersubjectively more so but i agree morality is not inherent in the cosmos.

P.s I have to modify what I said earlier when you asked if it would be murder to carry out an abortion if fetuses where proven to be humans,even if fetuses are classified as humans,taking human life under certain circumstances is not morally wrong and abortion is one of them

Here is my rebuttal of your argument above;

Human morality agrees that 'murder' is wrong. the only kind of murder we are inclined to excuse is one based on 'self defense or unintended' even at that is sometimes comes with consequences. But it can be excused.

Now based on this premise that 'murder is wrong' it begs the question 'why?"

Why is contingent on the human belief about the sacredness of human life.

Human means: Any member of the homo sapien specie

Murder means: Premeditated termination of a human life

Abortion premeditated termination of a pregnancy.

Abortion is not wrong because it stops a pregnancy, it is rather because it contradicts the fundamental premise that' 'murder' is wrong as it is in direct and willful termination of human life.

I have heard this line 'fetus' are not human to an absurd stage. Let me make something abundantly clear. "Human" is not a stage or a legal tag, neither is it a neurological or a physiological definition. it is a biological definition.

There is no point when a human is not human but then suddenly becomes human at another stage. a human is always a human. anything that is not human is not human and doesn't suddenly become human.

The stage of being "human" is not a single stage but rather a progression of overlapping stages physically distinguishable. in this sense, there are many stages of being a human:

Human adult
Human adolescent
Human child
Human baby
Human Fetus
human embryo

These are developmental stages of being a human with observable physiological differences. An adult is no more human than an adolescent and so on.

These stages are all humans but are different developmental stages of being "human" but all still human in essence.

An adult is a human at an adult stage (Note: Human is a being, adulthood is a stage), a child is a human at child stage, a baby is a human at baby stage, an fetus is a human at fetal stage, an embryo is a human at embryonic stage.

A being is an absolute state, a stage is developmental.

So, the main reason abortion is wrong, is that it is in direct termination of a "human" life which is the direct definition of "murder"

A sperm is a human cell and so is an ovum. It is an absurd notion to say "a cell is a human" but it is correct to say "a human is made up of cells"

Murder as an action is contingent on the presence of human life. Without human life, there is no murder.

Murder is not morally permissible.

Martinez39:
You are simply misunderstanding me. Look for the meaning of my statements and their logical and scientific implications because I can't state everything. A comatose man is still human because he beyond the stage of development of the heart. I mentioned that development of the heart, no consciousness and feelings, as the only necessary condition to classify as human because a man who is asleep is not conscious of his surroundings but he is well beyond the stage of development of the heart.

Oh i am not. I am just pointing out the reduction to absurdity of that argument.

If a heart is the necessary condition to be human, it makes anyone without a heart less human.

What you are saying is; there is a stage when a homo sapien is not homo sapien then suddenly becomes a homo sapien or more homo sapien.

I believe that apparently biologically nonsensical.

But tell us; What specie will a homo sapien be at this stage that it is not a homo sapien?
(No organism is without species)

Haba! I never spoke on the nature of a human being instead I gave a condition to classify what's inside the womb as human, so which one is To get this straight, Human is a stage not s state of being? a condition for something to become classified as X is not necessarily the same as the nature of X.

Actually it is the implication of your own assertion.

You said: If it reaches the stage of developing a heart then it is human?

which then begs the question: What is human?

Is human a stage when something develops a heart or a state of being?

So, don't misunderstand the implications of your own argument.

Once an embryo is at the stage of the development of the heart, the embryo remains human and cannot grow to become more human. Growth is different from biological evolution.

How exactly does something go from "not being human" to "human?"

What is human?

The implication of this argument that something was not human then suddenly gets to stage and becomes human leads to a hierarchical order of being human since it is contingent on developmental stage. Your argument is; An embryo that doesn't have a heart is not human, then it develops a heart it becomes human, should this consequentially lead to it becoming more human at the progression of its development? Or do you wish to cut off the consequence of your own argument?

And then my own question: When a pig's embryo develops a heart, does it become human?
p.s; Once an embryo is at the stage of the development of the heart it becomes human

I never said consciousness defines life. A man asleep and a man in coma are unconscious of their surroundings yet they satisfy the condition I gave so they are human and alive. It's immoral to kill them.

Doesn't every other animal satisfy that condition?

Isn't biological classification all about grouping into kingdoms, phylum,..., genus & specie? I am not doing that. Already it's clear what specie the embryo we are talking about is or does the abortion issue also worry about the abortion of dogs and rabbits? My classification is based on if it's human or not.

Actually it is not clear.

You are yet to define what a human is which is necessary for the premise of this argument.

What you are doing is; instead of saying what a human is which is a biological classification; You pick out isolated features like (heart) you think makes something human, the problem is, other species develop heart, so there is nothing that can be demonstrably shown in this your (heart) criteria that changes the essence of something into what we know as "human" it is just like Coolusername setting his own criteria as physiological and neurological.

So, what is human?

Maybe you don't get what I mean by human. Technically, all non-dead cells in a human body are alive but you can't classify a bunch of kidney cells as human in the same way you can't classify a bunch of cleavage of embryonic cells as human. I used the word to refer to a much more collective... erm, you know

It is not that i don't get what you mean as human, i am saying that it is vague and arbitrary and doesn't hold up.

Oh yes, a kidney is not human, a kidney is not remotely close to an embryo.

Do you want to commit the fallacy of false equivalence?

Technically, you are also just a cleavage of cells.

So, i ask again; Define human?

tintingz:
Any

Nope. That is a dictionary, we need a biology definition. So, which of the definitions are we going with?

Sources please.

You need a source that spells out what a living thing is? lol

Does any one finds stealing thier money good?

Your argument is still in the works here. I thought your argument is on the situation. If i was desperate enough, my action would be morally permitted.

Because the victim doesn't want the baby, how many times will I say this?

Does this change the definition of the action? No.

You haven't provide evidence fetus is alive.

Evidence that fetus is alive? Are you kidding me? OK, let me break it down for you elementarily.

What is a living thing?

tintingz:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human

Which of the definitions?

I will like to see the source. Is a fetus alive?

Yes. a fetus is very much alive.

Because it's a moral dilemma.

How so?

Is a fetus alive?

Yes.

It's morally wrong to be a robber because you're stealing from people.

But, but, situations matter don't they? Wasn't that your argument?

Does a fetus knows if it's alive? Why should a rape victim suffer for an unwanted pregnancy?

The premise is not on the ground of why a rape victim should suffer for an unwanted pregnancy, it is on what ground is premeditated murder morally permissible?

So what if a group of people agree abortion is morally good with good reasons, so what?

The moral weight of abortion is contingent on "murder" Until these people agree that "murder" is good, isolating related cases such as abortion would be a reduction to absurdity thereby making the very belief that "murder is wrong" self refuting.

Or do you have evidence a fetus is alive?

That is pretty elementary.

Martinez19:
When an embryo is still a cleavage of cells, it AUTOMATICALLY has no consciousness, no feelings and is very much the same as "other cells". That's simple biology. Note the key words: embryo and cleavage of cells. Both used together has the implication that consciousness and feelings are out of the picture.

So, anybody that has no consciousness is not human then? Just an unconscious cleavage of cells?

A comatose man is not human then.

You and I are still indeed cleavage of cells but we are not embryo. We are well beyond the stage of the development of the heart (organ of the body ) and we have consciousness and feelings. @Coolusername, I said once we are at and beyond the development of the heart, we are human not if you have a heart or a complete and fully functioning one at that. Kanu Nwankwo is well past the stage of the development of the heart

To get this straight, Human is a stage not s state of being?

Doesn't this imply that developmental complexity connotes something can be more human than the other. LIke: A human adult is more human than a human baby since a human adult is not a baby.

So, there is a point when a human was not human?

What specie is an embryo?

All cells are not the same. I placed them in the same category based on the fact that destroying or wasting both does not involve the elimination of consciousness and/or torture of feelings because both have none.

Consciousness does not define human life.

I never intended a biological classification here. I thought that was apparent.

Doesn't this imply you never intended for a human based argument which is the fundamental premise on which abortion can be morally abhorred.

For me, to be human doesn't mean having a heart. To be human, you must be at or beyond the stage of the development of the heart.

Therefore; fucck biology. Osheeey

CoolUsername:
If it's only genetic, is an embryo human?

Yes.

What about a zygote?

yes.

Or a sperm cell?

No. It takes 46 homo sapien chromosomes to make-up the genetic sequence needed for a human.

First answer: The irreversible loss of consciousness already results in death, without a natal environment the early-term foetus will never achieve consciousness. The difference between the dead human and the child is that the human was conscious at some point in the past.

A still born baby is not human?

A dead human?

Second answer: Any specie that is self-aware to human standards should be granted human rights.

Actually the question is; is it human?

Morality would always have some level of ambiguity and arbitrariness, that is where most moral arguments stem from.

Only that in this case, your definition of a human is the subject of ambiguity though

First answer: I cannot give a dictionary definition off the top of my head but I do know the characteristics to look out for. Humans must meet a certain threshold of genetic similarity, intelligence, and self-awareness to the human average population.

Just a biological definition will suffice.

Human definition is not contingent on Isolated capabilities like self awareness or intelligence or 10 fingers or similarities otherwise losing them would logically amount to becoming less human.

Human is a biological class.

Second answer: A foetus that hasn't reached the intelligence and self-awareness threshold should not be afforded the rights of the mother carrying it in her body.

Again, my question didn't ask if a fetus has rights as the mother. My question was; In what way is a fetus not human?

Not by themselves, no.

Therefore an argument based on these is actually a reduction.

I have had arguments on what a human is; philosophical that is, in every evolutionary or biological classification, there is but a single definition of a human and that is "Any member of the homo sapiens specie" or broadly "any member of the homo specie" when accounting for other human species.

Once again, I'm only arguing for abortions of foetuses less than 20 weeks. And no those foetuses shouldn't be compared to comatose people, they could more accurately be compared to other life-forms (first trimester foetus is very similar to a pig foetus for example.

Any life form with neurological capacity of a human should be considered sentient and should be given human rights, not considered human.

Self-awareness is the benchmark that I'm most comfortable with.

There is a difference between; Any life form that is sentient should have human rights (i disagree with this but that will be an argument for another time) and any life form that is sentient is human.

Sentience is a feature of human beings not its definition.

A homo sapiens that is not sentient is still a homo sapiens, a sentient pig isn't a homo sapiens.

As long as we have established that neurological capabilities to not define "homo sapiens" i see no reason why a homo sapiens offspring is not homo spaiens because it is not yet "sentient"

I never said that parents should kill a living child with down's syndrome. But a foetus that has been confirmed to have an extra chromosome (down's syndrome) can be aborted and I would consider that decision to be moral.

Can this be said for every other genetic anomaly or defect that affects human offsprings?

Martinez19:


It depends on the stage of development of the embryo

Do you want to bring up the "it is not human argument too" Warning; that won't go so well.

If it's still a cleavage of cells, then it's not immoral to wipe it off

Technically, this is also what you and i are. a cleavage of many cells but this doesn't make you think it is morally permissible to kill me.

Why? i wonder.

But i am just a cleavage of cells.

because it's in the same category of a spermatozoa and we know it's not immoral to masturbate even though we waste spermatozoa cells (which have potential to become humans). Both have no consciousness or feelings and they are just cells.

Actually, an embryo is not remotely close to being the same thing as a spermatozoa or an ovum. It is very apparently different that i didn't expect to see this.

1 is a human offspring
2. is a human cell

connect both to me

if it has already formed a heart, then na human being be dat, no try am

So, to be human you must have a heart? Any human that does not have a heart is not human? Let's be sure.

tintingz:
The early fetus is not fully human, a day old baby is fully human.

This is the part i ask; define "human?"

We don't know yet when a fetus is alive

Actually we do. And a fetus is always alive until it is killed by either natural or man imposed circumstances.

If the carrier doesn't want it, why should she wait for 9 month to deliver the baby and later find the baby in the gutter dead?

The point is; why do you weigh them morally as different?

Both entails premeditated termination of a human offspring.

Circumstances play roles in our lives and humans are not perfect.

Can i use this to infer moral permissibility to become an armed robber?

If a group of people said they want something to be morally permissible , it can be archived, were you not the one that talked about "social myth"?

Yes i am. And if you understand the intricacies of human social interactions, you would know this is an oversimplification.

darkchild64:
Hitherto,I have not giving u a set of criteria to explain why I consider a fetus as not being human,I only mention some of them in the course of my explanation that is not to say that they are the solo reason for my stance

That is a problem, if you cannot define what a human is which specifically addresses the underlying essence of the being, what are we doing?

What we know is: a human is not a physiological classification, it is not a neurological classification. Because these Isolated cases are torn part easily.

By bringing such isolated vague criteria, you are opening your argument up to easy refutation because all the other person needs to do is give one example of something that reaches the criteria you bring up but is not that same thing.

It is like saying "Human is a being that has 10 fingers"
Surely, 10 fingers is a feature of humans but not the definition.

Or saying "A human is a being that is self aware" Self awareness is a feature or capability of "humans" not the definition of humans. these instances can easily be refuted by providing instances that reach such criterias but are still not humans.

But when you define "human" to be exactly what it is which is a biological classification, it is an impeccable argument.

I can not give you a specific definition,but like I said earlier human beings include men women and children,a fetus is not a human because it doesn't have most of the important characteristics that a mam,a woman and a child has

You cannot give a specific definition of what a "human" is, how the can we trust your "usage" of the word?

Isn't your usage of the word "Human" arbitrary and ambiguous since there is not objective definition ascribed to that word?

I hope you know how we landed here and if I understand what you are saying now Mind or mood altering drugs are legalized,but how are they immoral ?
" Go Bleep yourself" is not immoral by my own standards, depending on the usage tho,this is why I said that circumstances determine if a thing is right or n

They are immoral because they contradict the principles of ethics in human social behavior.

I am pretty sure "Go fucck yourself" is unethical and that is why it is censored in almost every medium of communication.

Heck Nairaland even changes it to "bleep"

see? ethics

tintingz:
There are differences, one is not completely developed while one is completely developed.

When we go into moral dilemma, it's better to terminate the embryo or fetus rather than killing a full developed baby.

So, moral permissibility is contingent on developmental stage?

Doesn't this necessitate a hierarchical order of permissible preferences? Like; I'd rather you terminate a day old baby than a 1 year old.

Sometimes yes, e.g a rape victim who got pregnant to a rapist should be granted her "wants" to terminate the pregnancy.

Why not always?

Is morality not what's consensually "want" by the people?

It is an intersubjective consensus that "murder" is wrong. Abortion is an isolated case related to that premise.

And this is why in order to water down the moral weight of abortion, people would first argue to remove the subject of murder thus the argument "a fetus is not human"

tintingz:
Abortion can be morally permissible when the carrier doesn't want the child, we don't want babies seen dead in the waste bin or in the gutter or becoming homeless, it's better to terminate it at early stage of pregnancy.

How are they different?

Why is one morally permitted and the other not?

So, moral permissibility is grounded on the basis of "Want"?

CoolUsername:
No. I'm simply saying that a non-human isn't human.

A week-old feotus has the physiological and neurological capacity of a tadpole.

A a foetus doesn't possess self-awareness before the 23rd week or so. It is an unconscious being,

I will like to know the biological definition of human.

A human simply means "A member of the homo sapiens specie. And this as a biological classification is fundamentally genetical not physiological or neurological.

Are you saying that a man who by any situation is not self aware is not human?
Are you saying that any other specie that is self aware is a human?

See the problem with such ambiguous arbitrary criteria?

So i ask again; Define human?

How is a fetus not human?

because obviously physiological or neurological criteria do not define "human"

The level of brain activity in foetus before about the 20th week is similar to that of a brain-dead person.

Sources?

So yes, any human who doesn't meet a certain degree of neurological capability is as good as dead, that is already how it is.

So, a fetus is comparable to a comatose then?

And is human a neurological state?

Does any life form that attain such so called neurological capability qualify as human?

What neurological capability is your benchmark to measure what is human?

And oh, a dead person is actually human, just dead.

That's different, though. I used Zika as an extreme example because kids with zika don't make it past the first hour of life. I don't believe that a disability is a good reason for abortion but I also don't believe that anyone should be forced to raise a child born (note the emphasis) with something like down's syndrome.

So, parents of children with down syndrome are morally permitted to kill them then or morally excused not to kill them?

On the other hand, a healthy child coming down with a degenerative disorder is different because the child is free-living, meaning it is no longer subject to its mother's body autonomy.

So, there are instances that parents should not kill a child even when it is clearly disordered or direct obstacle to their development?

darkchild64:
I would say both.

Not really both. Human is a biological classification.

but if one is not satisfied then you won't refer to the subject in question as a human,in this case a fetus does not satisfy the criteria to be called a human physiologically speaking,you don't say something is what it is if it doesn't possess certain characteristics,one major characteristic that human beings have is respiration, and as basic as this is a fetus can not conveniently do so if extracted from the mother's womb,I can't call such a human being,although a fetus may seem defenseless and delicate but we shouldn't let our minds get clouded with sentiments, a fetus especially in its early terms is not qualified to be referred to as a human being because it doesn't have the qualities a human being has

I think you are making the mistake of reducing what a human is to a single vague criteria.

A human simply means "A member of the homo sapiens specie. And this as a biological classification is fundamentally genetical not physiological.

Are you saying that a man who by any situation cannot respirate is not human?
Are you saying that a dog who can respirate is a human?

See the problem with such ambiguous arbitrary criteria?



So i ask again; Define human?

How is a fetus not human?

Of course they are not exactly the same,that's why they are different words,but morality is open to a lot of interpretation while legality is not,a thing can only be made legal if it is accepted to be moral that's my point,people would always argue about what is right and wrong but making it legal makes a very strong claim that it is right.

Morality and legality operate fundamentally on different philosophical basis.

If a fetus is seen as a human,then yes,taking human life is murder except in certain conditions

Alright then, we will have to see if a fetus is human or not.

Would you be kind enough to give me an instance

Use of mind or mood altering drugs.

Usage of some words which are legal under the principles of free speech. example "Go fuuuck yourself'

darkchild64:
I don't think so

Ok

Yes,a fetus is a potential human not a human
The definitions of human being I saw stated "man woman and child",I don't consider a fetus that doesn't even have a well sectioned four chambered heart as a human(that's not my criteria),just saying that a fetus of a few weeks old does not qualify to be called a human,still has a lot of development, to undergo to reach such standards

So, a human is not a state of being but a stage of being?

I could have sworn that "Human" is a state of being "a member of the homo sapien specie"

And such a being goes through developmental stages through the course of its life.

"Rights" has an inextricable connection with morality,something seen as immoral would not be recognized as a "right" so I don't see any dichotomy,if someone has a right to do something then it is accepted to be moral

Not necessarily true. Legal rights and morality overlaps in some instances true, they are not necessarily the same.

No
And that is because there is a difference between a 10 weeks old fetus and a baby(which is a human being)
Why stop there ?,you might as well see jerking off as tantamount to murder

And if a fetus is shown to be human, will it be murder then?

And your definition of human being as stated up there is in fact wrong.

Is it possible to legalize something that is accepted to be immoral ?

Yes.

CoolUsername:
The distinction is where we begin to define it as 'human' life.

Where? When does something become human?

You are suggesting that there are times when a human is not human?

Define Human?

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I'm saying that an early-term feotus that doesn't have neurological faculties to process information, or feel pain shouldn't have the same rights as a fully formed child or even a late-term foetus.

In other-word, any human that doesn't meet a certain degree of neurological capability is ok to be killed?

Furthermore, foetuses with severe disabilities should not be forced on parents. Why subject a woman to a 9-month pregnancy when the child has the zika virus, for example?

Why stop there? Can't we go ahead and morally permit parents killing children with physical disabilities? Like; when your child comes down with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, why not go ahead and kill it instead of continuing raising a vegetable child? Why isn't this morally permissible? Why should parents be obligated to raise such children?

I'm aware of that, which is why made that distinction.

ok

Because they possess all the characteristics of a fully formed child.

And what is the distinction of the moral implications in both instances?

CoolUsername:
I think there should be some form of threshold. A 5-week pregnancy is very different from a 5-month pregnancy-physiologically speaking. So, I'm a more comfortable when the abortion involves an early-term pregnancy.

Since there is a progression of your comfortability of "terminating" a human life.

it is safe to assume that you'd be more comfortable killing say, a ten year old child than a 20 year since they are physiologically different. hierarchically of course.

However, while I'm personally not cool with late-term abortions, I won't support legislation against it, and I won't tell others what to do.

This is not an argument on legislation but on moral permissibility.


So, why exactly are you not cool with late term abortions?

darkchild64:
First I have to say this,I do not regard anything to be exclusively right or wrong,it's the circumstances that they occur in that make them bad or good.

This will create a slippery slope

Since we are talking about taking human lives,I would love to apply the first statement I made to it,what makes it wrong to take a human life and what could justify it ?,I wouldnt anwer that but like I said,the circumstances that they occur in gets to decide,so u shouldn't see taking of human life as inherently wrong.

Interesting.

Now to answer your question,I think that at the stage that most assisted abortions occur(1st trimester of pregnancy) the life in question here is that of a foetus which is still in its early developmental stages,yes its a potential human but so is a sperm and ovary so I would not accord it the same right as a grown person or even a baby.

So, a fetus is not a human yet?

Define human?

We are not talking about "rights" but moral implications.

At that stage the fetus can not even survive independently,so suffice to say it cannot do without the mother so I think the woman has the choice to say what stays in its body and what does not.

And that begs the question: Is her decision to terminate it morally permissible (Not same thing legally permissible)

Then another point I would love to make is this,lets put sentiments apart,people abort because that don't want the baby,now I know in most cases the pregnancy could have been avoided but rather than have a child you are not prepared for,which might ruin your life and future,I guess its best to abort if the process is safe enough,in future you can always have as many children as you wish,I do not support bringing children into the world when its obvious you don't want them.

Why stop there? If i had a baby and it is directly affecting my productivity "ruining my life in a sense of it" am i morally permitted to kill it on this ground?

In cases of rape I think if the woman conceives she can abort the child if she wishes for obvious reasons.
I'm of the view that if abortion is legal it might be of the interest of the society,people wouldn't die of complications associated with abortions or damage their wombs.

This is a misunderstanding, my question does not address the legal permissibility of abortion, it is rather a moral premise.

darkchild64:
Personally I would wish people do not abort babies or rather fetuses,however I think in my own view and perspective of morality it is permissible

Why is it morally permissible?

MuttleyLaff:
It is a morally permissible action
I dont see why not, is why

Ok. Cool

This is a very controversial topic in the world today, whether abortion is a morally permissible action or not.

do you think it is or not?

Why?

MhizzAJ:
Who is thos cocoNUT head above me.

How is she a useless girl.

Its not by force to be in a relationship

If you cannot cope with her , leave her alone.

Some men are very capable....they wont complain..
They wouldnt mind spending all their savings for her afterall shes your girlfriend.
Stingy man

you are an slowpoke