Oh God No! The beginning of the end for sensible politics in the UK?

[OzzyKP]

What's wrong with having a moral component to politics? If political leaders decide on moral issues (and they do) what is wrong with considering morality when making those decisions? Seems to be common sense to me.

[Sava]

Lets make adult murder legal as well, then.

adults have a soul... an unthinking mass of cells, or fetus, does not.

[Whaleboy]

what is wrong with considering morality when making those decisions? Seems to be common sense to me.

Trouble is that morality is a very weird thing. Religions don't have a monopoly on it. I have a morality that might be completely different to someone elses... both might be legal. It's always a very difficult road to go down for politicians.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

All of which assumes that the abortion (the foetus is the "one" upon whom you suppose is having morality forced) is killing a person as opposed to a bunch of cells that we kill in our daily lives all the time. You have yet to make that point, but your argument is built on it. We are attacking that assumption, you are not defending it. Merely restating your argument does not make it so.

What You've quoted was my reply to your claim that laws protect us from being forced to some morality, not only to protect us from any harm.
I do claim fetus is more than a bunch of cells. A bunch of cells do not have an ability of growing into an adult human being.

I do not presume it, I conclude it.

Then, I conclude it is a person.

Cognitive capacity, a functioning nervous and cerebral system to aid communication (demonstrable or known consciousness) are ways to tell that exist.

Yes. A fetus has all that, perhaps but consciousness, but isn't unconscious person a person?
Do You have to have all 3 of that? There are people who do not.

They don't go into metaphysical religious bull**** like the "soul" that in reality means nothing here

In fact, St Thomas "counted" when the soul enters fetus, and amazingly it is about the time the brain forms.
But I do not mention soul. You do. And do not call it bull****. It's rude.

What if I have a nosebleed? Is the contents of my tissue a human?

What if you're unconscious and unable to feel pain? Are you human?

What if you've had brain damage and can't dream... are you a human?

What if you are deaf? Does that mean you are suddenly less human?

Have You ever seen an unconscious deaf tissue with brain damage?
It's about having potential of all or most of it.

A bunch of embryonic cells are incapable of feeling pain, have no cerebrum in which to dream, and cannot sense as we do.

hmmmmm Whaleboy, there's a misunderstanding. I'm talking about a phase in which all that is present. I could understand abortion before forming of brain, but I understand forbiding also that: we're not able to know exactly where a human being starts, so we should protect life from the very beginning.

Your definitions just don't hold water.

See above. You've imputed me some views I do not hold.

In your example, no. But can an embryo be compared to a human adult? Of course not! It'd be more like flushing the toilet in Nazi-occupied Paris.

Fetus can be compared to an adult, even 5-cell one, for that matter. And **** is not alive.

All of which *again* rests upon the assumption that the foetus is a child, which is the very assumption that is under attack but you are providing no evidence for it. You have thus far failed to show how it is a child and the burden of proof is now on you to do so.

Bah, You wish so. You do not accept my explenations why fetus is a child, but it's the same situation on my side. The burden of proof is on both sides.

No it isn't. In a society where the state and the church are separate, the law exists to maintain equilibrium in society and prevent harm, morality is presumed to be more individualistic and subjective, hence why atheistic societies are usually more libertarian than theocracies... consider the modern UK as opposed to Saudi Arabia or Inquisition-era Spain. Obvious exception to that is the USSR for numerous reason but that's another story.

You do not get my point. "Preventing harm". How can we now someone's been harmed? We must judge behaviour, distinguish right from wrong to do that.
Morality is in general about distinguishing good and evil.
Any distinguishing in between them is morality.
Law distinguish right from wrong, therefore it's morality.

To support my opinion, Wikipedia:
"Morality is a complex of principles (...) by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong."

a contraversial procedure performed in clean, safe, clinical environments by professionals with counselling and support afterwards, or some failed med student from Albania in a dusty back room with a coat hanger. Tough call.

Indeed, it is not. Both procedures are as evil.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Sava
adults have a soul... an unthinking mass of cells, or fetus, does not.

Who are You to judge who has soul and who does not?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Heresson


Who are You to judge who has soul and who does not?

it's not a matter of judgement... it's fact. fetuses don't have developed brains... without the hardware, the software cannot exist.

Even the bible says life does not start until you breath your first breath. IIRC, you need to be born to do that. And even in those times, infanticide was quite prevelant and common. Infanticide is mentioned in the Bible.

[Whaleboy]

A bunch of cells do not have an ability of growing into an adult human being.

What relevance does the ability have to the argument proposing that foetus at that given time can be aborted? That falls to the same problem of semen and eggs.

Then, I conclude it is a person.

You can't because you've provided no argument to that end. You are assuming it is true, you aren't trying to explain, and thus conclude why so. The two are completely different.

Yes. A fetus has all that, perhaps but consciousness, but isn't unconscious person a person?

A foetus has cognitive capacity (intelligence) and a functioning nervous and cerebral system and demonstrable consciousness? Hardly. The only human lifeforms that *don't* are those that are brain dead, clinically dead, or foetuses up to a certain point. I accept that there is little difference between a foetus one day prenatal and one day anti-natal.

But I do not mention soul. You do. And do not call it bull****. It's rude.

bull**** Vulgar Slang
n.

1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.

Religion is something wortheless, deceptive and insincere, methinks bull**** is a good term. Autocensor doesn't seem to mind, we're all good!

Have You ever seen an unconscious deaf tissue with brain damage?
It's about having potential of all or most of it.

Why is potential so important, other than it being the only possibly recourse of any hope for your argument? You have to deal with the foetus as it is, not what it might be. I have the potential to be something greater than I am now but one has to always deal with me as I am, and if I am not a conscious being like a a bunch of foetal cells then I cannot choose to act, so the question of individual actualisation of potential is basically irrelevant if you accept that there is nothing "essential" (i.e. soul) about a foetus. If you think it has a soul then that is your "get out of jail free" card, but then you must defend the concept of soul itself.

we're not able to know exactly where a human being starts, so we should protect life from the very beginning.

I grant you that we don't know when the brain achieves consciousness, but we can tell fairly sure when a foetus is certainly not a person, shall we say, a 3/4 week old foetus is perfectly safe to abort.

See above. You've imputed me some views I do not hold.

You're talking about potential, I took that and showed it to be an absurd definition.

Fetus can be compared to an adult, even 5-cell one, for that matter. And **** is not alive.

Repeating yourself won't validate your argument.

Bah, You wish so. You do not accept my explenations why fetus is a child, but it's the same situation on my side. The burden of proof is on both sides.

No it isn't. You have simply said that it is and provided some easily refuted half-assed reasons. I have given you an argument that you have barely dealt with at all, the burden of proof is solely on you at this stage. I will not accept your conclusion that a foetus is not a child because your argument for that is weak. This isn't a matter of not listening to your opinion.

You do not get my point. "Preventing harm". How can we now someone's been harmed?

I do get your point, my problem is that you are invoking "someone" where in this case "someone" doesn't exist, no more so than a spoonful of ejaculate or a spider I flicked out of the window earlier.

Morality is in general about distinguishing good and evil.
Any distinguishing in between them is morality.
Law distinguish right from wrong, therefore it's morality.

No, morality is about defining what one should or shouldn't do. Some advanced moral systems account for the problem of "lesser evils". I emphasise moral systems, because there are numerous ones that contradict, some including myself would have them as individual as each of us. The law on the other hand distinguishes between what is and isn't acceptable in the society... law and morality, they're not the same thing. One is contextual, one is supposedly universal, and the latter is too variant to use consistently anyway.

To support my opinion, Wikipedia:
"Morality is a complex of principles (...) by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong."

And there are ways to determine that morality... universalisability in the Kantian sense, by consequence in the utilitarian, the virtuous in the Aristotolean and the emotive in the subjectivist sense. It is universal, not sociological, as is the law. Often they conflict... it may be moral to steal to support your starving children, but it isn't legal... or it may have been legal to keep slaves, doesn't make it moral. It doesn't define what is right, but here I think we can assume moral to mean "murder = wrong", but if murder can only applies to a person, then the debate over whether a foetus is a person still continues, effectively you have just repeated yourself again.

Indeed, it is not. Both procedures are as evil.

Again you show me no reason why this is so, nor have you stated which moral system you are using here (and thus enabled me to counter it). Suppose for a second that the foetus is a person, or that the question has not been settled. Surely the option that results in less suffering for people like the mother and reduces the risk of disease/infection, is inherently less "evil" by any measure than the coathanger option no?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
What relevance does the ability have to the argument proposing that foetus at that given time can be aborted? That falls to the same problem of semen and eggs.

Perhaps if people had eggs.
But eggs that we are eating are at a specific stadium,
when the chicken inside it is not yet present in any form resembling an adult chicken.

You can't because you've provided no argument to that end. You are assuming it is true, you aren't trying to explain, and thus conclude why so. The two are completely different.

I'm providing arguments, but You disagree with them, just as I'm disagreeing with your "arguments"

A foetus has cognitive capacity (intelligence) and a functioning nervous and cerebral system and demonstrable consciousness? Hardly. The only human lifeforms that *don't* are those that are brain dead, clinically dead, or foetuses up to a certain point.

Sorry, You've written it in a pretty blurry way. What were You trying to prove exactly?
Also, if You accept that there's a little difference between a fetus 1 day before the birth and one day after, where's the boarder according to You?

Religion is something wortheless, deceptive and insincere, methinks bull**** is a good term. Autocensor doesn't seem to mind, we're all good!

Religion is not worthless. It's given us wonderful art, it's given us philosophy and science, it gives us meaning of life. Is it deceiptive? Depends if You believe it's true or not. Insincere? Are You kidding? Whatever You say, it's hard to believe that Jesus, St Paul or even some medieval pope were intentionally misleading people.

Why is potential so important, other than it being the only possibly recourse of any hope for your argument?

It is not.

You have to deal with the foetus as it is, not what it might be.

Who says so? You?
Lets put it this way: If You treat a serie murderer as He is, You should kill him. But You should treat him minding what He might become, and resocialise him.
If You have a seed of a flower, You do not think about it as it is, You think of it as of a potential. Otherwise, You shoud throw it away, for what's the use of some brown stinking little clod?

I grant you that we don't know when the brain achieves consciousness, but we can tell fairly sure when a foetus is certainly not a person, shall we say, a 3/4 week old foetus is perfectly safe to abort.

Bah, in general that's my view.
However, I have respect for view that's defending human life from the beginning.

You're talking about potential, I took that and showed it to be an absurd definition.

I was not talking about potential in those posts I think.
Anyway, yes, it can be overdone up to protecting of sperm. There's no virtue that can not be turned into a fault. The question is where should we put the line.
Our definition is about the same, the one of CC is 3-4 weeks earlier, that's not much

Repeating yourself won't validate your argument.

There are kinds of people You have to repeat something several times to before they understand :P
No, seriously I was not repeating myself.

No it isn't. You have simply said that it is and provided some easily refuted half-assed reasons. I have given you an argument that you have barely dealt with at all, the burden of proof is solely on you at this stage. I will not accept your conclusion that a foetus is not a child because your argument for that is weak. This isn't a matter of not listening to your opinion.

It is....
Well, our views aren't really contradictory. I think that forming of a brain is the beginning of personality.
CC claims it's conception. I could defend their opinion,
and I in fact did: when we do not know the exact point, we're taking the earliest possible one.
In that discussion, the question of personality is irrelevant, though.

No, morality is about defining what one should or shouldn't do.

Morality: Killing is bad.
Law: Killing is forbidden.
It's a difference between theory and practice.
Notice that God in fact sent us 10 commandements in a form of laws: Thou shall not kill.

Some advanced moral systems account for the problem of "lesser evils". I emphasise moral systems, because there are numerous ones that contradict, some including myself would have them as individual as each of us. The law on the other hand distinguishes between what is and isn't acceptable in the society... law and morality, they're not the same thing. One is contextual, one is supposedly universal, and the latter is too variant to use consistently anyway.

The cathegory of "lesser evils" admits existance of good and evil. If we should do something, it must be good, or at least closer to the good than the other option.
Law is an eclectic morality composition. That it may change is irrelevant - You're just changing the morality you're using in that specific part of law.
I do not claim law is an universal morality. It's attempt of executing morality.

Often they conflict... it may be moral to steal to support your starving children, but it isn't legal...

Bah, it's not a conflict of morality and law. It's a conflict between one of the morality commandements and other,
and it is not possible to avoid it in practice.

effectively you have just repeated yourself again.

Just like yourself. You've "refuted" my points by repeating that fetusi are not persons

Again you show me no reason why this is so

Murder is evil , as I've mentioned earlier.

, nor have you stated which moral system you are using here (and thus enabled me to counter it). Suppose for a second that the foetus is a person, or that the question has not been settled. Surely the option that results in less suffering for people like the mother and reduces the risk of disease/infection, is inherently less "evil" by any measure than the coathanger option no?

Killing the mother during the operation would spare her not only that suffering, but also all the next possible suffering

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Sava
it's not a matter of judgement... it's fact. fetuses don't have developed brains...

Ony to a point.

Even the bible says life does not start until you breath your first breath.
IIRC, you need to be born to do that.

You do not. Breathing is not about opening mouth and catching air, it's about using oxygen, and child does it.

And even in those times, infanticide was quite prevelant and common. Infanticide is mentioned in the Bible.

So is war.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Heresson
You do not. Breathing is not about opening mouth and catching air, it's about using oxygen, and child does it.

Genesis 2:7 "God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul."

sorry you lose

[Odin]

Heresson gets PWNED!!!

[Heresson]

You should not take the Bible too literally

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps if people had eggs.
But eggs that we are eating are at a specific stadium,
when the chicken inside it is not yet present in any form resembling an adult chicken.

I was referring to human eggs, "lost" during every period. You haven't answered the question.

I'm providing arguments, but You disagree with them, just as I'm disagreeing with your "arguments"

Err no. There is a big difference between disagreement saying effectively "I don't think that you're right" and refutation saying "I don't think you're right, and this is why", when those reasons undermine the other persons argument.

Sorry, You've written it in a pretty blurry way. What were You trying to prove exactly?

That if you accept a workable definition between mere lifeform and person as being cognitive capacity (intelligence), a functioning nervous and cerebral system and demonstrable consciousness, then the only human life forms that could not be considered "person" are those that are brain dead, clinically dead or the small clump of cells of a foetus. The latter is not conscious, is not intelligent, indeed is only animate in the cellular sense. It could not be considered a person.

Also, if You accept that there's a little difference between a fetus 1 day before the birth and one day after, where's the boarder according to You?

In that case there is no border between one day prenatal and one day antinatal, if there is a border it would lie in the gestation itself. There are other people better read in foetal development than me, but this follows similar lines to others used in medical ethics (where the "lifeform - person - being" distinction is commonly used) where ideally it's arbitrary to the individual so it would be impossibly to legistlate along biological lines. In that case, take a reasonable figure; say, four months, when you're guaranteed that any younger foetuses are mere lifeforms, but cannot guarantee (if not determine) that ones that are older are also persons (more differences between the law and that which purports to be morality).

Religion is not worthless. It's given us wonderful art, it's given us philosophy and science, it gives us meaning of life. Is it deceiptive? Depends if You believe it's true or not. Insincere? Are You kidding? Whatever You say, it's hard to believe that Jesus, St Paul or even some medieval pope were intentionally misleading people.

Perhaps "worthless" was not appropriate, though "bull****" was imo. To my mind, religion wasn't worthless, just like Nazism wasn't worthless. Meaning of life? As with all biblical "truth", I could write some book containing a meaning of life, for example that we should all sacrifice lemmings to the giant pixie living in the Sun, but that has no more validity than the Bible. Insincere... Do you think that the Church has or had a purpose OTHER than profit and social control?

It is not.

Well, yes it is. If you agree with me that a newish foetus is a lifeform and not a person and thus subject to the same ethical constraints as disinfecting a toilet then the only way your argument can go is to talk about the potential of the foetus to become a person, which is itself refuted with your basic existentialism > essentialism.

Who says so? You?

In the example you gave, as a serial killer, the murderer was demonstrably conscious, so any change or fulfillment of potential would be his and his alone; other people no matter how authoritative would only be influences. A foetus is not conscious. Sure it could become conscious, but because it is not any actualisation of potential becomes irrelevant to the treatment of it as a "person" (it really all falls back to that definition). As it is not a person, the issue of potential is similar to taking a dump. Ones waste might provide nutrients in the soil for a plant to grow, but does one flush the toilet thinking it contains a turd, or a tulip? Same situation exists here.

If You have a seed of a flower, You do not think about it as it is, You think of it as of a potential.

Only if you want it to turn into a flower . Just as you only think of an embryo as a baby if you want to carry the pregnancy to term... but you don't have the right to make that call, the only person who does is the mother. If the mother doesn't want to carry it to term she should be allowed to rid herself of the foetus and any attempt to force her not to is forcing ones "morality" upon her .

However, I have respect for view that's defending human life from the beginning.

But why? I can understand one having issues with aborting an 8-month old foetus, indeed I would disagree with that, but that's completely different to a 4 week old bunch of stem cells. There is nothing in that latter that warrents the same defence as the former, so it is inconsistent to espouse one.

Anyway, yes, it can be overdone up to protecting of sperm. There's no virtue that can not be turned into a fault. The question is where should we put the line.

"There's no virtue that can not be turned into a fault"..., I like that well worded .

To me, put the line where it lies in fact, not fantasy. If science can one day provide a solid definition of lifeform and person based on valid definitions then great, however all we have now are relatively sound definitions (See above) and guesswork so I think one should play it safe. Allow abortions early in the term but disallow them after perhaps 10/12/16 weeks (others would be in a better position to quote specifics).

No, seriously I was not repeating myself.

Well you said that a foetus (even a 5-celled one) can be compared to an adult. I disagree for the above reasons.

Well, our views aren't really contradictory. I think that forming of a brain is the beginning of personality.
CC claims it's conception. I could defend their opinion,
and I in fact did: when we do not know the exact point, we're taking the earliest possible one.
In that discussion, the question of personality is irrelevant, though.

I see where you're coming from, I really do, but your definition is more workable than the Catholic Church. You're providing a premise for a distinction that separates person from lifeform (the formation of a brain), but the CC gives no good evidence or premise for their position. Some loose religious dogma from an ancient text is not enough imo to justify a place in a cutting-edge scientific discussion. Occams razor cuts the crap, in this case the idea that because a conscious baby pops out nine months later, the embryo was a person at conception. If you accept that sperm and eggs are not subject to the same protection as a baby then the sum of their parts, namely an egg that has just been fertilised are subject to no greater protection. The CC needs to provide evidence that the egg is creater than the sum of its parts, otherwise burden of proof presumes it not to be.

Morality: Killing is bad.
Law: Killing is forbidden.
It's a difference between theory and practice.
Notice that God in fact sent us 10 commandements in a form of laws: Thou shall not kill.

No, the law is not applied morality; granted it once was but we have moved above a theocracy. Killing is bad... bad is an absolute term... killing is forbidden... forbidden requires a context in which one is to forbid, and presume that possibly outside of that context it would not be forbidden... it is contextual and thus relative.

The cathegory of "lesser evils" admits existance of good and evil. If we should do something, it must be good, or at least closer to the good than the other option.

In that case you would agree that safe, clean, clinical environments are preferable to dirty rooms and rusty coat hangers?

Law is an eclectic morality composition. That it may change is irrelevant - You're just changing the morality you're using in that specific part of law.
I do not claim law is an universal morality. It's attempt of executing morality.

That's inconsistent. You're assuming a universal morality upon which law is based, while beforehand you said that changes in the law are irrelevant, you're changing the moral basis behind it. Absolutes don't change, by definition. If you're claiming a universal absolute morality, it can't change. If a law is based upon it, it must thus be relative to it, and able to change. That modern legal systems are now based not on religious dogma but humanistic morality such as utilitarianism or the categorical imperative shows that if there is an absolute morality, laws are not based upon it. Note that I, as a moral relativist, do not believe that objective morality exists at all.

You'll note of course that the problems of drawing a legal line to reflect scientific fact is not a moral problem, it is subject to science and reason more than anything, hence the "play it safe" element. None of this of course helps to settle the question of whether a foetus is a lifeform or a person, which is the crux of our two positions, since the CC holds the human lifeform to be also a person at conception.

Bah, it's not a conflict of morality and law. It's a conflict between one of the morality commandements and other,
and it is not possible to avoid it in practice.

In that situation a moral imperative to feed your children would be far greater than a moral imperative not to steal, yet the legal imperative not to is a far higher practical concern to you, since there are consequences offered; accordingly it is a conflict between morality and law.

Just like yourself. You've "refuted" my points by repeating that fetusi are not persons

No. To repeat is to say "this is the case". I am trying not to do that. I am trying to engage with your arguments and show you "why this is the case". If you repeat yourself without engaging my "whys" then the burden of proof remains on you.

Killing the mother during the operation would spare her not only that suffering, but also all the next possible suffering

I would imagine her family and friends would suffer no?

Ony to a point.

And thus up to that point, the conditions are completely different no?

it's about using oxygen, and child does it

Indeed, as do the smallest fish, amoeba and insects.

So is war.

IMO, the bible devotes far more attention to curbing war than infanticide. Remember that it is a text written between 1800 and 3500 years ago, it will fit the society at the time, not that which we know today. It is primarily a political text, the fairy tale element is used to that end.

[lightblue]

Even the catholic church didn't attribute a soul to a fetus until lthe 5th month, until it got changed by some busybody pope in the 16th century or so.

[Odin]

Heresson really has a problem with circular reasoning...