Abortion: When is a fetus a human?

[Fleiur]

And you still have not defined what life is, and you still dodge questions, and still don't understand any of my points. A definition of life needs to apply outside of the womb, unless you claim that exiting the womb means death no matter how. You seem not to want to have an actual conversation about this. From a complete definition of human personhood, I should be able to tell whether any object is a person just by applying your definition. You have failed, repeatedly, to do this. You have also failed, repeatedly, to engage with my arguments, deciding only to purposely dodge my questions. The one argument you've given is perhaps the stupidest I've ever read, basically going 'But if I'm wrong here, then I'm also wrong on X as well, so I can't be wrong here.' Unless you decide to actually engage in debate honestly, I am done wasting my time beating you in an argument.

Maybe this will get through to you. I originally left the left because of shitty arguments for gun control convinced me that gun rights were the correct opinion. In much the same way, the 'strength' of your arguments are currently convincing me that abortion does not begin at conception. You are the best argument against this position I have seen.

If you ever want to engage, the question is still open: Define personhood, including what begins personhood, what continues it, and what ends it. This definition needs to apply to people outside of the womb as well as inside of it.


Okay, so your definition of personhood is something like: different DNA than the mother, and can survive, grow, and reproduce?

I don't think this is a good definition because what about people who are infertile? These are definitely still people. Also, what about old people who have stopped developing? Does cells splitting still count as growth, or not?

Finally, DNA isn't the best argument for conception because of cloning using nuclear transfer, which would give an exact copy of the adult. For example, if Dolly the Sheep were a human, and implanted in the same sheep who gave the nucleus, there would be no difference in DNA.

I can see that we will never see eye to eye because as a woman, I cannot comprehend your argument that once I get pregnant the baby that I'm carrying can be killed because it has no brain activity. I cannot put myself in that perspective, knowing that 1. I know that I'm going to be experiencing changes in my body because I have another living human life inside of me. 2. This human fetus that I am bearing inside me is not just a part of my body but another living human life that I need to nurture and take care of for 9 months inside my womb until it comes out. I cannot subject myself to killing my own flesh and blood. This selfish act is immoral. And it is disheartening that the reasons are mostly irresponsibility and selfishness. We women were created to nurture and bear this gift from God and not to murder it.

 

[Abhorsen]

I can see that we will never see eye to eye because as a woman, I cannot comprehend your argument that once I get pregnant the baby that I'm carrying can be killed because it has no brain activity. I cannot put myself in that perspective, knowing that 1. I know that I'm going to be experiencing changes in my body because I have another living human life inside of me. 2. This human fetus that I am bearing inside me is not just a part of my body but another living human life that I need to nurture and take care of for 9 months inside my womb until it comes out. I cannot subject myself to killing my own flesh and blood. This selfish act is immoral. And it is disheartening that the reasons are mostly irresponsibility and selfishness. We women were created to nurture and bear this gift from God and not to murder it.

It seems like the argument you have is an emotional one. That's the arguments you tried to use on me as well. But ultimately, facts don't care about feelings. This means we have to find out when a fetus becomes a human based on factual arguments, not our feelings about what ought to be right. If we allow feelings to be arguments, you also allow people who never feel like they have a baby inside of them to be justified in aborting it at any time. We also can't base arguments in religion, as those arguments don't work on people outside of your religion. This is why we need to figure out when a human life begins using reason.

 

[PeliusAnar]

It seems like the argument you have is an emotional one. That's the arguments you tried to use on me as well. But ultimately, facts don't care about feelings. This means we have to find out when a fetus becomes a human based on factual arguments, not our feelings about what ought to be right. If we allow feelings to be arguments, you also allow people who never feel like they have a baby inside of them to be justified in aborting it at any time. We also can't base arguments in religion, as those arguments don't work on people outside of your religion. This is why we need to figure out when a human life begins using reason.

I disagree with this. While you may discard feelings, these very feelings give people a sense of right and wrong and inform the discussion. In the end feelings inform the scope of the discussion. Yes these feelings lead to divergent views, none of them are less valid than any other since that minimizes a person’s life experiences that develop these feelings.

If we are truly ignoring feelings and morals that have developed over millennia through religions then old people would be euthanized when they can no longer contribute. Eugenics would be the watchword. A society based on pure logic and science with no regard for human life would be pants shitting terrifying.

 

[Abhorsen]

I disagree with this. While you may discard feelings, these very feelings give people a sense of right and wrong and inform the discussion. In the end feelings inform the scope of the discussion. Yes these feelings lead to divergent views, none of them are less valid than any other since that minimizes a person’s life experiences that develop these feelings.

If we are truly ignoring feelings and morals that have developed over millennia through religions then old people would be euthanized when they can no longer contribute. Eugenics would be the watchword. A society based on pure logic and science with no regard for human life would be pants shitting terrifying.

I'm not arguing against morals, but against a feelings-based morality. Because then how do you argue against the celebration of abortion? It makes the people feel good, so it must be good? Moral intuition is not moral fact. It might seem instinctively right to punch a Nazi for saying vile things, but that doesn't make it morally right, as you are interfering with someone's right to free expression.

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

I'm not arguing against morals, but against a feelings-based morality. Because then how do you argue against the celebration of abortion? It makes the people feel good, so it must be good? Moral intuition is not moral fact. It might seem instinctively right to punch a Nazi for saying vile things, but that doesn't make it morally right, as you are interfering with someone's right to free expression.

Nothing is absolute, especially "moral fact". You can't not ignore emotions involved in a case as they can change the context of a case. Emotions can be facts that must be included and considered in the judgement. Hence why crimes of passion are treated differently from premeditated ones. Sure both objective fact and emotions need to be considered.

 

[Abhorsen]

Nothing is absolute, especially "moral fact". You can't not ignore emotions involved in a case as they can change the context of a case. Emotions can be facts that must be included and considered in the judgement. Hence why crimes of passion are treated differently from premeditated ones. Sure both objective fact and emotions need to be considered.

Your mixing two things here. You are talking about the emotions of the actors having an effect on their actions, and thus an effect on their moral culpability. But the judge should not use emotion in their judgment of whether the action actually happened. In this case, what we are exploring is 'when does a fetus become a person'. This is a scientific and religious question. Your feelings don't spontaneously turn a fetus into a baby. Accepting an emotional argument here is a bad idea.

 

[PeliusAnar]

We also can't base arguments in religion, as those arguments don't work on people outside of your religion. This is why we need to figure out when a human life begins using reason.

Your mixing two things here. You are talking about the emotions of the actors having an effect on their actions, and thus an effect on their moral culpability. But the judge should not use emotion in their judgment of whether the action actually happened. In this case, what we are exploring is 'when does a fetus become a person'. This is a scientific and religious question. Your feelings don't spontaneously turn a fetus into a baby. Accepting an emotional argument here is a bad idea.

There is no exact scientific answer. We can point to various stages of development and death, but defining human life at one of those points is a moral question. Hundreds of years ago, if your heart stopped, you were dead. Now we know that is not the case. In a few hundred years being brain dead may not be a huge hurdle either.

The history of religion gives context to people's morality. This morality informs both individuals and a society based off those religious principles of how we interpret science in the context of our definitions. I agree there should be a clear dividing line in regards to legal issues and reaching a compromise and something that aligns with the science in place. Legal, morality, and science all play a role in this discussion, saying one of these factors is superior to another disregards the values people have, which come from their experiences. That is where I think some of your confusion comes from, initially you said not to include religion and then say it is a religious question. The issue of morality, which comes from religion or life experiences, is just as equal to the discussion as a scientific argument.

Brainwaves, makes the most legal sense from a clear dividing line while removing fringe cases. Scientifically, the brain represents the continuity of consciousness. For morality, it falls in the area where most people are comfortable with. Some time for the woman to make a decision, but no late term abortions. This is why brainwaves are the most inclusive and clear standard at the moment, this could change, but for now this is why brainwaves is a good deciding factor.

 

[Abhorsen]

There is no exact scientific answer. We can point to various stages of development and death, but defining human life at one of those points is a moral question. Hundreds of years ago, if your heart stopped, you were dead. Now we know that is not the case. In a few hundred years being brain dead may not be a huge hurdle either.

The history of religion gives context to people's morality. This morality informs both individuals and a society based off those religious principles of how we interpret science in the context of our definitions. I agree there should be a clear dividing line in regards to legal issues and reaching a compromise and something that aligns with the science in place. Legal, morality, and science all play a role in this discussion, saying one of these factors is superior to another disregards the values people have, which come from their experiences. That is where I think some of your confusion comes from, initially you said not to include religion and then say it is a religious question. The issue of morality, which comes from religion or life experiences, is just as equal to the discussion as a scientific argument.

Brainwaves, makes the most legal sense from a clear dividing line while removing fringe cases. Scientifically, the brain represents the continuity of consciousness. For morality, it falls in the area where most people are comfortable with. Some time for the woman to make a decision, but no late term abortions. This is why brainwaves are the most inclusive and clear standard at the moment, this could change, but for now this is why brainwaves is a good deciding factor.

I think you phrased it pretty well, and this is sorta what I was trying to say, but failing at it. I disagree with your moral reasoning at the end coming from what people are comfortable with (bolded by me), but other than that I agree. You seem to imply that morality comes from what people are comfortable with, which I disagree with.

As for the confusion on religion in my posts, religious arguments don't really work well on a policy decision, as people might not believe your religion. But on an individual level, or even for a mono-religious community, it can make sense to use religious arguments as a guide/answer to morality.

But what isn't okay is to base moral decisions on only feelings/emotions. These can give an idea of what is right, and can serve as a guide, but aren't reliable. And if one has the time to think things through, they should be able to find what is morally correct. If the only argument one is left once some form of reason is applied (this could be logical reasoning, moral reasoning, or even religious reasoning) is 'that feels wrong', then the problem is with your belief, not the action.

 

[King Krávoka]

Trying to scientifically define a line where it's no longer okay to abort doesn't work, since abortionists don't care about the line in practice and will doubtlessly try to lawyer and fudge past it. There is no slippery slope fallacy when it comes to genocide, either killing is wrong or it's okay if you misfile the paperwork properly.

 

[PeliusAnar]

I think you phrased it pretty well, and this is sorta what I was trying to say, but failing at it. I disagree with your moral reasoning at the end coming from what people are comfortable with (bolded by me), but other than that I agree. You seem to imply that morality comes from what people are comfortable with, which I disagree with.

As for the confusion on religion in my posts, religious arguments don't really work well on a policy decision, as people might not believe your religion. But on an individual level, or even for a mono-religious community, it can make sense to use religious arguments as a guide/answer to morality.

But what isn't okay is to base moral decisions on only feelings/emotions. These can give an idea of what is right, and can serve as a guide, but aren't reliable. And if one has the time to think things through, they should be able to find what is morally correct. If the only argument one is left once some form of reason is applied (this could be logical reasoning, moral reasoning, or even religious reasoning) is 'that feels wrong', then the problem is with your belief, not the action.

Science hasn't and most likely never will reach the point where you can point at something and say alive/dead, human/bunch of cells. Science develops and evolves as our understanding improves and changes. I really like the example of a person's heart not beating. As the knowledge improved so did both the legal and moral interpretations of life change. Science at its heart is progressive, because it is always moving forwards. Legal, is what represents the here and now as a society. Morality, is our understanding of the past and experiences both as individuals and as a society.

You want to disregard morality since it isn't reliable. That is no where close to enough to ignore morality. If you say to disregard morality in this context, what stops you from disregarding morality in other contexts? Again I will point to elder people, who just sit in a retirement home and don't contribute to society. If we used a solely scientific argument, they should all be escorted to a furnace and shoved inside, alive, since it will save resources long term. It sounds extreme, and it is, since we disregarded morality.

Let's take another example without killing people. Slavery was justified under the context of science. We can safely call bullshit to that today, but that is with the benefit of hindsight. It was people who believed in their morals that was the key to forcing this issue to change.

That is why I personally wouldn't trust any person who says, 'Let's just trust the science on this.' Science can be wrong had has been many times in the past. Science is not a replacement for judging right/wrong/morality. This becomes even more important when dealing with human lives. So while I do agree with your position, I strongly disagree that one should arrive at said position with an understanding based in science and not morality.

I believe you have stated you started this thread to refine your understanding and arguments in regards to this issue. If you want to change a person's mind on this topic you have to be willing to discuss the issue on their terms. A similar example is stop and frisk. I can explain crime statistics all day, but that doesn't take into account the harassment, embarrassment, and frustration an innocent person going through that would feel and does nothing to address it. That is why you have a hard time debating this with @Flieur. He is discussing this on only a moral level while you only want to discuss it on a scientific level. Neither one is superior, but unless you are willing to make a moral argument to defend your position as well, I would say it is only partially baked.

 

[Abhorsen]

Trying to scientifically define a line where it's no longer okay to abort doesn't work, since abortionists don't care about the line in practice and will doubtlessly try to lawyer and fudge past it. There is no slippery slope fallacy when it comes to genocide, either killing is wrong or it's okay if you misfile the paperwork properly.

Regardless of whether it will stop abortionists, it is still necessary to figure out where the line is for people who do care about morality. So far, it seems personhood starting at conception is failing the arguments I pose to it, and starting at brain activity passes the arguments given to it.

You want to disregard morality since it isn't reliable. That is no where close to enough to ignore morality. If you say to disregard morality in this context, what stops you from disregarding morality in other contexts? Again I will point to elder people, who just sit in a retirement home and don't contribute to society. If we used a solely scientific argument, they should all be escorted to a furnace and shoved inside, alive, since it will save resources long term. It sounds extreme, and it is, since we disregarded morality.

No, I don't want to disregard morality at all. I am quite fine with moral reasoning and can understand religious reasoning. The issue I have is with substituting feelings for morality. A feeling, without any other argument backing that up, is not morality.

I also don't just trust the science on this. A pure scientific answer might not value babies, as they aren't sentient. By saying that any thought makes one a human, and thus of equal value, I use a moral reason. The science just comes in deciding when a thought first occurs, and what a thought is.

As for meeting people on arguments they find valid, it is impossible to argue with a feeling/emotion. It is a basic part of ones self, and unless you are going to use some sort of reasoning to escape base impulses, it is fruitless to try. For example, using Jesus' command to turn the other cheek can cause people to not give into the basic desire for revenge. You could argue that revenge is morally wrong using other morality systems as well. Or you can point out that they aren't likely to succeed with revenge and it is a waste of time. All of these are valid reasons. What isn't valid, and what I argue against here, is logic along the lines of 'I feel right to take revenge, so I'll take revenge', or conversely, 'I'd feel wrong if I took revenge, so I won't take revenge'. Both are bad reasons by themselves. That was the argument given: 'I feel like the fetus is a baby, so it is', followed by a bunch of conclusions based on the fetus being a baby.

I believe you have stated you started this thread to refine your understanding and arguments in regards to this issue. If you want to change a person's mind on this topic you have to be willing to discuss the issue on their terms. A similar example is stop and frisk. I can explain crime statistics all day, but that doesn't take into account the harassment, embarrassment, and frustration an innocent person going through that would feel and does nothing to address it. That is why you have a hard time debating this with @Flieur. He is discussing this on only a moral level while you only want to discuss it on a scientific level. Neither one is superior, but unless you are willing to make a moral argument to defend your position as well, I would say it is only partially baked.

@Fleiur isn't giving moral arguments though, but appeals to emotion. 'This feels wrong' isn't much of an argument even for moral purposes, and that was all Fleiur had in the end (notably the pictures of the fetuses). In addition, we didn't even get to a moral question of whether to commit abortion or not, but just whether it was human life, which is a philosophical/scientific/religious question. It has a huge impact on morality, but is not a moral question itself, much as math has a large impact on physics. But even then, I did make a moral argument. I valued a person's life, valued all people's life equally, and made a philosophical definition of life, dependent on thought. The rest was reasoning, but it was built on a moral foundation.

 

[PeliusAnar]

SNIP

Emotions and feelings are often how people express their moral standing. The majority of people won't be able to break down those emotions and feelings into a coherent argument, but at the end of the day I still hold that on such issues involving human life, emotions and feelings which lead to morals are too important to discard.

You say that the argument, "'I feel like the fetus is a baby, so it is', followed by a bunch of conclusions based on the fetus being a baby." To argue this on a moral level, I would ask why they feel this way and what is informing their conclusion. The most likely answer will be religion, and if I had to guess the second most said answer would be personal experiences. That means digging up theological references that support your position. History of Church and Abortion. I would bring up that the church originally opposed abortion on the basis of sexual promiscuities and never ruled on if the fetus is a human being or not.

As for personal history, that is often used the argument the other way that abortions should be legal for so long, but it is all over the spectrum. To have a discussion on this is impossible. You can either sympathize or try to bring the discussion in another direction. One will never out argue personal experience, and that is my personal experience.

I do think that your position is based on morality. But saying things like we need to just focus on the science, or that how people feel is not important, ignores a vast number of people. Out of 100 people, I doubt more than 5 have really considered this issue in depth. Despite that, I will equally bet that 95 out of 100 have an opinion on the topic. That means there are 90 people who base their opinion of abortion mostly on feelings. If anyone has any actual surveys, more power to you. But anyone I have talked to about this issue just tends to pick a side because they feel that way. You need to get to the reason why they feel that way first, in a way that doesn't make them feel attacked, in order to change their mind.

 

[Abhorsen]

Emotions and feelings are often how people express their moral standing. The majority of people won't be able to break down those emotions and feelings into a coherent argument, but at the end of the day I still hold that on such issues involving human life, emotions and feelings which lead to morals are too important to discard.

You say that the argument, "'I feel like the fetus is a baby, so it is', followed by a bunch of conclusions based on the fetus being a baby." To argue this on a moral level, I would ask why they feel this way and what is informing their conclusion. The most likely answer will be religion, and if I had to guess the second most said answer would be personal experiences. That means digging up theological references that support your position. History of Church and Abortion. I would bring up that the church originally opposed abortion on the basis of sexual promiscuities and never ruled on if the fetus is a human being or not.

As for personal history, that is often used the argument the other way that abortions should be legal for so long, but it is all over the spectrum. To have a discussion on this is impossible. You can either sympathize or try to bring the discussion in another direction. One will never out argue personal experience, and that is my personal experience.

I do think that your position is based on morality. But saying things like we need to just focus on the science, or that how people feel is not important, ignores a vast number of people. Out of 100 people, I doubt more than 5 have really considered this issue in depth. Despite that, I will equally bet that 95 out of 100 have an opinion on the topic. That means there are 90 people who base their opinion of abortion mostly on feelings. If anyone has any actual surveys, more power to you. But anyone I have talked to about this issue just tends to pick a side because they feel that way. You need to get to the reason why they feel that way first, in a way that doesn't make them feel attacked, in order to change their mind.

This makes sense. Ultimately, I think that when someone is relying on a gut feeling, it is difficult to argue them out of it. But also, a good amount of this thread is for my own, selfish need for a correct moral position from my own viewpoint. I think I'm correct where I draw the line, but I want to have more certainty, hence this thread. I'll probably put up another thread on a leftier site to deal with arguments from the other side as well.

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

This is a scientific and religious question. Your feelings don't spontaneously turn a fetus into a baby. Accepting an emotional argument here is a bad idea.

Feelings is what turns a baby into something worth caring about in the first place. Personhood being valuable it not a scientific fact, its religious and philosophical argument based on feelings.

Accepting a scientific argument is a bad idea, because that means you are just a collection of cells and chemistry. Any moral argument is not 100% scientific. Because morals can be guided by science, but not created by it.

 

[Abhorsen]

Feelings is what turns a baby into something worth caring about in the first place. Personhood being valuable it not a scientific fact, its religious and philosophical argument based on feelings.

Accepting a scientific argument is a bad idea, because that means you are just a collection of cells and chemistry. Any moral argument is not 100% scientific. Because morals can be guided by science, but not created by it.

My argument isn't a pure scientific one. It is based on moral values, then using logic and science to determine what those moral values mean in practice. For example, lets look at the trolley problem, where you can throw a switch to kill one group instead of another (who would die if you did nothing). Your moral reasoning could conclude that it is right to kill a few to save many, then you would use science to determine how many people are on each track, so the least number of people are killed. My moral/philisophical argument is that a) all people's lives have equal value, b) something is either a human person or it isn't, and c) personhood exists if and only if thought exists. The science is just determining what thought is (any electical signal in the brain) and when thought starts (about 8 weeks).

We can also use science to pick apart moral or philisophical theories. For example, the claim that its wrong to kill a rock because a rock can feel it falls to science showing that rocks don't have feelings or brains. Now if someone makes a non-falsifiable claim, then science can't do anything. The claim that conception is a bright line dividing new human life from potential human life has, in this thread at least, kept losing to scientific arguments against it.

Now let me use a moral argument against you:

Feelings is what turns a baby into something worth caring about in the first place.

I very much disagree with this, and it opens all kinds of holes. What about the fetus no one cares about? By your logic, since no one cares about it, it has no moral worth, so would be fine to abort.

I don't have an actual answer for why a human life is valuable, but I am looking for one. Right now, all I am left with is intuition and ideas that don't seem to hold up to scrutiny. I might start a thread on this as well.

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

My argument isn't a pure scientific one. It is based on moral values, then using logic and science to determine what those moral values mean in practice. For example, lets look at the trolley problem, where you can throw a switch to kill one group instead of another (who would die if you did nothing). Your moral reasoning could conclude that it is right to kill a few to save many, then you would use science to determine how many people are on each track, so the least number of people are killed. My moral/philisophical argument is that a) all people's lives have equal value, b) something is either a human person or it isn't, and c) personhood exists if and only if thought exists. The science is just determining what thought is (any electical signal in the brain) and when thought starts (about 8 weeks).

We can also use science to pick apart moral or philisophical theories. For example, the claim that its wrong to kill a rock because a rock can feel it falls to science showing that rocks don't have feelings or brains. Now if someone makes a non-falsifiable claim, then science can't do anything. The claim that conception is a bright line dividing new human life from potential human life has, in this thread at least, kept losing to scientific arguments against it.

The fact is that equality and the sanctity of human life comes from belief in said principles not science. Science ultimately has to take the back seat to belief because while it can support philosophical and religious tenants it can't be a belief.

It can prove rocks don't have feelings, it also can't prove that feelings grants you any special consideration over a rock. We die all the time in nature, nature has no intrinsic moral bent.

Science also doesn't judge the value of falsity over truth, if a culture developed a religion that rocks had feelings, and said culture just so happened to work in such a way as to avoid ecological issues and somehow succeed economically and scientifically, then what value does the truth have?

Do they have equal value? On what standard are you claiming that one human live is equal to another? What evidence is this based on? It can't be simple intelligence or physical ability, people have different ranges of either? What if one group was made up of invalid or extremely ill victims? And lets face it, no one is going to simply judge the value of life equally if people you care about are one of those tracks.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." What you have are beliefs, and the incredulous feeling you have reading my argument is your feelings on those beliefs. Beliefs are inherently emotional, and not scientific.

A healthy balance should be maintained, but science can't ever be driving the train, its not there for that.

Now let me use a moral argument against you:

I very much disagree with this, and it opens all kinds of holes. What about the fetus no one cares about? By your logic, since no one cares about it, it has no moral worth, so would be fine to abort.

I think you misread this part. The whole point is that babies are valued because of feelings, not quantifiable differences between cellular structure. Human are biological machines. The sophistication by itself offers no divine spark. We value babies because we value people, and we value people based on emotions.

I don't have an actual answer for why a human life is valuable, but I am looking for one. Right now, all I am left with is intuition and ideas that don't seem to hold up to scrutiny. I might start a thread on this as well.

That's because as you've shown above, any logical argument falls apart under certain conditions. There is no proof of a moral divine truth to be found in logical study. It can help things along, but never answer them. Unless we happen to find actual proof of how the universe works fully, but who knows when or if that will ever happen.

Granted we've also gone over the flaws of a purely emotional based philosophy. That leads to painting faces on rocks and calling them Wilson.

 

[Abhorsen]

The fact is that equality and the sanctity of human life comes from belief in said principles not science. Science ultimately has to take the back seat to belief because while it can support philosophical and religious tenants it can't be a belief.

It can prove rocks don't have feelings, it also can't prove that feelings grants you any special consideration over a rock. We die all the time in nature, nature has no intrinsic moral bent.

Science also doesn't judge the value of falsity over truth, if a culture developed a religion that rocks had feelings, and said culture just so happened to work in such a way as to avoid ecological issues and somehow succeed economically and scientifically, then what value does the truth have?

Do they have equal value? On what standard are you claiming that one human live is equal to another? What evidence is this based on? It can't be simple intelligence or physical ability, people have different ranges of either? What if one group was made up of invalid or extremely ill victims? And lets face it, no one is going to simply judge the value of life equally if people you care about are one of those tracks.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." What you have are beliefs, and the incredulous feeling you have reading my argument is your feelings on those beliefs. Beliefs are inherently emotional, and not scientific.

A healthy balance should be maintained, but science can't ever be driving the train, its not there for that.

Exactly. I'm not using a scientific argument when I say this. I wasn't using a purely scientific argument before either. I was making moral arguments, then adding science to apply them in the real world. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me here.

I think you misread this part. The whole point is that babies are valued because of feelings, not quantifiable differences between cellular structure. Human are biological machines. The sophistication by itself offers no divine spark. We value babies because we value people, and we value people based on emotions.

No, I'm pretty sure I read this correctly. I just fundamentally think it is wrong. If there is a fetus/person that no one values, does it have moral value in your opinion? In mine, it does, and to kill it would be just as bad as killing someone that many people care about. Your system doesn't seem to treat that as wrong.

That's because as you've shown above, any logical argument falls apart under certain conditions. There is no proof of a moral divine truth to be found in logical study. It can help things along, but never answer them. Unless we happen to find actual proof of how the universe works fully, but who knows when or if that will ever happen.

I'm personally not comfortable with my arguments for the value of human life on this front, and I don't think just saying it's a given is the right argument here, though you could.

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

Exactly. I'm not using a scientific argument when I say this. I wasn't using a purely scientific argument before either. I was making moral arguments, then adding science to apply them in the real world. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me here.

I think its the implication that moral arguments can be anything other than emotional ones in the end, and the degree as to which we apply them. You think science back moral arguments are somehow less emotional than emotional based moral arguments and therefore are closer to the truth.

No, I'm pretty sure I read this correctly. I just fundamentally think it is wrong. If there is a fetus/person that no one values, does it have moral value in your opinion? In mine, it does, and to kill it would be just as bad as killing someone that many people care about. Your system doesn't seem to treat that as wrong.

I think you're confusing a criticism of your moral philosophy with being an actual moral belief I hold. You are arguing the dividing line between human and not human using science, but failing to realize that science having no moral evidence to be found. If anything science has proven fetuses are human, just not a fully developed one. So your argument falls into the realm of your emotions. And lets face it, a socially convenient one at the moment.

I'm personally not comfortable with my arguments for the value of human life on this front, and I don't think just saying it's a given is the right argument here, though you could.

I think discworld sums it up best. We need to believe in things that aren't true, how else can they become true?

 

[Abhorsen]

I think its the implication that moral arguments can be anything other than emotional ones in the end, and the degree as to which we apply them. You think science back moral arguments are somehow less emotional than emotional based moral arguments and therefore are closer to the truth.

Well, at the very least, Kant would disagree with you. His whole philosophy is based on what he considers reason. Also, this wouldn't hold against religious morality, at least when they claim that the morality comes from God's commands. Neither of these philosophies are based in emotion.

I think you're confusing a criticism of your moral philosophy with being an actual moral belief I hold. You are arguing the dividing line between human and not human using science, but failing to realize that science having no moral evidence to be found. If anything science has proven fetuses are human, just not a fully developed one. So your argument falls into the realm of your emotions. And lets face it, a socially convenient one at the moment.

No, I did not use a scientific argument for when life began. I set out the defining line between person and not-person using a philosophical argument, where I identified thought as the definition of personhood. (Alternatively, if I believed in souls, I might argue that thought is the manifestation of the soul. Maybe here it is more clear this isn't a scientific argument?) The only science is pasted on at the end to figure out what the philosophical argument actually means in practice. Similarly, a definition of life at conception needs science to determine when conception happens. That doesn't make that argument scientific either.

I think discworld sums it up best. We need to believe in things that aren't true, how else can they become true?

I don't think this is a good argument for why life has value. It implies that people don't have an inherent value.

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

Well, at the very least, Kant would disagree with you. His whole philosophy is based on what he considers reason. Also, this wouldn't hold against religious morality, at least when they claim that the morality comes from God's commands. Neither of these philosophies are based in emotion.

Morality comes from God because we believe he exists and have faith that these are in fact his real commands. Belief and faith are feelings. God's commands only work as far as we believe them to be true, even when we try to deny the existence of divinity we still fundamentally depend on the same emotions for any moral system.

No, I did not use a scientific argument for when life began. I set out the defining line between person and not-person using a philosophical argument, where I identified thought as the definition of personhood. (Alternatively, if I believed in souls, I might argue that thought is the manifestation of the soul. Maybe here it is more clear this isn't a scientific argument?) The only science is pasted on at the end to figure out what the philosophical argument actually means in practice. Similarly, a definition of life at conception needs science to determine when conception happens. That doesn't make that argument scientific either.

The problem is your failure to recognize that there is no magic dividing line between person and not-person, because person hood is the biological outcome of natural processes of the fetus. If anything your argument is even less based on logic, because it is even more arbitrary in its use of the spark of divinity. Personhood randomly starts when a beings brain functions without regard to the natural biological process that lead to that point. If anything its more mystical than the believe that person hood starts at conception. At least that statement identifies the reality that the personhood is the natural outcome of natural process taking place in the womb. Instead of magically starting when we say it does.

I don't think this is a good argument for why life has value. It implies that people don't have an inherent value.

Steel boxing a counter argument is not the same thing as arguing it is true. The issue is the fear that it might be true that makes you shy away from it. Your belief that human life is sacred shields you from considering why it is sacred. People try to shield their beliefs from scrutiny nowadays by making them as small as possible, then they make fun of the beliefs of others calling them without evidence, without proof, while ignoring the fact they are the same.