The king's interest in his subjects, — tim wood

That has been addressed in the argument regarding mother vs baby. The king may have an interest in future generations, but my thread of yarn was simply an effort to speculate on what that interest might be, considering the women is standing right there in front of him. Subjects, or subjects to be? That is the question. I think we answer that by saying "To be, or not to be, that is a question for the mother. The king can go F himself and see if he can make a subject on his own.

you are wise stopping because i proved it legally and biologically

ou are wise stopping because i proved it legally and biologically — Alexandros

You would have been wise to read what I already said in debunking your understanding of law and biology. I stopped because the balance of your post had been previously debunked. The wise choice, would be for me to stop explaining that which has already been explained but ignored, with no new distinctions with a relevant difference. So now let me pretend to be wise.

↪Antinatalist a psychiatric condition is behind antinatalists, calling for destruction of human life and claiming that it has no value. — Alexandros

That is not what I said. I consider human life has a great value, but I don´t regard young human fetuses as human beings.

. Evidently an inner conflict can create such a profile. May you one day open your eyes and discover how unconscious forces are guiding yourself into the realm where there is no reason. Onthe other side there is a realm of reason. Biology and logic have proven my points. Do not mix the animals here because it was never a point of discussion here. — Alexandros

All what´s in your posts are biological speciesism and statements without reasoning, there´s no logic there. And when we are discussing of giving a human rights for non-sentient fetus, speaking of also from animal rights are more than relevant. At least, already born mammals are way more sentient beings than young human fetuses.

And ability to feel emotions and to suffer is one criteria of value of life. And there´s huge difference of ability to feel pain between insects and mammals, for example. Looks like you don´t know much about biology yourself.

. The only animal that can give them value is the human being in its dimension of morality. Intellect puts the man in a higher hierarchy in the animal realm. — Alexandros

There is a contradiction with your own statement. A newborn child is not as intelligent as five year old bonobo ape. And analyzing your own logic and reasoning, I´m not sure are you either (as intelligent than five year old bonobo ape). Anyway, I give you the​ value of a human being. Human value is not depending about intelligence, or lack of it.

Yes there is hierarchy and structures and responsibilities. People with trouble accepting that develop their complexes in ideologies and as Jung called them spirit epidemics. Anyway, again, this has nothing to do with the discussion but even there your reasoning is flawed. Evidently you just feel forced to get off the track under feeble arguments, in reality the lack of them. My advice, study, be humble and take responsibilities. — Alexandros

I don´t think you are the person to talk to me about structures and responsibilities, or reasoning. You take some moral axioms for granted, with no reasonable argument behind. Some may say, that you should start to think with your own brains, but I see problem there; looks like you don´t have enough brains to think for. You can prove me wrong, but I seriously doubt your capability for that.

John Donne, Meditation 17.
http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/meditation17.php — tim wood

Great piece, by the way. Thank you. With suns rising and bells tolling I'm seeing Earnest H, but only by the titles to his books. I have them on me reading list, but I think Donne might be more interesting.

again, it's not your opinion about what you think it's human life, tgat has already been resolved in biology. Neither is my opinion. It's a fact. From there the rest follows. Regarding your example of an ape being more intelligent, an ape is an ape and it's not going to be more than that. Do not misinterpret me, I value apes, but as apes. And the foetus has a different essence. So it's irrelevant your comparison

my points were never debunked, just because you say it it isn't magically happening.

my points were never debunked, just because you say it it isn't magically happening. — Alexandros

Then you did not read my posts in this thread, or the debunking eluded you. Here I am, being stupid again. LOL!

let's make it concise, in your example there are no moral subjects as morality only exists in human consciousness, there are different degrees of consciousness. Animals are conscious too. Anyway, morality can exist in that dimension only and it doesn't affect the objectivity of it. Objectivity which is going to be attained through intellect. You have an analigy with numbers or ecuation pointing out relations objectively existent outside the realm of the mind, we just discover them through intellect. Regarding morality, it exists only when there are moral subjects and its universal values are objective in logical thinking. We disagree in a point in which discussion cannot go further because you are sustaining ammorality as a basis for every other point you want to make. — Alexandros

I still don't understand what you mean by a 'moral subject.' Please say what you mean by it. Are you using it the way it is used here: ('A moral subject is anything that can be harmed', https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/moral-agent-subject-of-moral-worth), or are using it to mean something else, and if so, what?

↪Antinatalist again, it's not your opinion about what you think it's human life, tgat has already been resolved in biology. Neither is my opinion. It's a fact. From there the rest follows. Regarding your example of an ape being more intelligent, an ape is an ape and it's not going to be more than that. Do not misinterpret me, I value apes, but as apes. And the foetus has a different essence. So it's irrelevant your comparison — Alexandros

A human fetus could be biologically human in essence of biological definition, but it is not sentient being at the early stage of pregnancy. That is the essential point.

And about intelligence, there are people who have so permanently mentally retarded condition that they could never reach the intelligence of a five year old ape. According to your point of view of importance of intelligence for value of a human life, you cannot therefore give the value of human being for those mentally retarded persons and not give the same value for apes. According to your logic, you should give more value for life of apes than for those mentally retarded people.

FWIW, in their book "Beating Hearts", Michael Dorf and his wife Sherry Kolb brought up the endowment principle to differentiate someone who is temporarily comatose or, in their specific example, someone who is temporarily frozen as a result of a skiing accident, such as Anna Bagenholm. Basically, since such individuals possessed sentience in the past and will possess it in the future, it would be wrong to deprive them of sentience because you're depriving them of something that they already had as opposed to of something that they never had. But of course I subsequently proposed this hypothetical scenario to Professor Dorf in an e-mail:

Let's say that you press a magic button that creates a frozen person with no memories and no past history in a physical condition similar to that of Anna Bagenholm back when she was frozen. In such a scenario, would this frozen person actually have a right to life? Should one actually have a moral duty to save their life, or would refusing to help them be comparable to refusing to conceive someone in the first place? After all, such a frozen person, in spite of them looking like an ordinary person, never actually had sentience to begin with but could acquire sentience if they will indeed be unfrozen in time.

There is of course also the bodily autonomy argument, but that's only relevant if one grants prenatal personhood.

Yes, actually you should. If a particular human will never actually exceed an ape in intelligence, then that's an argument in favor of treating this ape no worse than one would treat this human.

For what it's worth, there is Don Marquis's future of value argument in regards to abortion. I think that it's overly ambitious in its scope, but one could view it as an argument in favor of prenatal personhood even for non-sentient prenates.

But of course I am highly uneasy about the future of value argument because anti-abortion people only apply it to existing organisms--not to organisms who don't actually exist yet. In other words, refusing to conceive someone and thus depriving this person of a future of value is perfectly acceptable; it's only when someone is already conceived and deprived of a future of value that they are actually being wronged. I'm not sure just how exactly one should square this circle. I mean, one could imagine there to be a case where it is wrong to refuse to conceive someone--for instance, if someone asks you to be their sperm donor, where you have ironclad legal guarantees that you will never be hunted down for child support afterwards, and where this other person says that they will never have any biological children if they can't have them with you, then I would indeed think that it would be morally wrong for you to refuse to donate your sperm to this person and thus allow them to conceive and create a new life. But this is a pretty exceptional case, IMHO.

not quite, the logic is following the essence not the accident

↪Antinatalist not quite, the logic is following the essence not the accident — Alexandros

I take it you mean some sort of essence that makes humans human. This is a myth, there is no such thing. Humans are composed of matter and energy, like other material objects, and as far as anyone has been able to discover, nothing else.

In other words, refusing to conceive someone and thus depriving this person of a future of value is perfectly acceptable; — Xanatos

'Depriving this person' is confused. If there is never to be a conception, then there is no person to be deprived, and so to refuse to conceive a person is not wronging the never-to-be-conceived person, because 'the never-to-be-conceived person' fails to denote anything.

↪Antinatalist Yes, actually you should. If a particular human will never actually exceed an ape in intelligence, then that's an argument in favor of treating this ape no worse than one would treat this human. — Xanatos

Yes, I agree. But I don´t think that value of the sentient life depends on intelligence.

not quite, the logic is following the essence not the accident — Alexandros

Now I have to admit, my intellect could not follow your logic.

The essence is that "A human fetus is biologically human" (not "it could be")

lack of sentience or intelligence does not make it not-a-human being.

↪Antinatalist
The essence is that "A human fetus is biologically human" (not "it could be") — SpaceDweller

By biological definition yes, I agree.

lack of sentience or intelligence does not make it not-a-human being. — SpaceDweller

The ability to sentience is essential, when we are discussing are we going to give - or give we not - human rights for some being.

I think a woman should have the unfettered right to do whatever the hell she wants with her "baby" up until parturition. — James Riley

I think you need to be more precise. Parturition involves several stages (https://www.healthline.com/health/parturition#stage-3). At which of the following stages do you consider that the woman no longer has the 'unfettered right'?
1. Latent phase of dilation of the cervix.
2. Active phase of dilation of the cervix.
3. Passive phase of expulsion.
4. Active phase of expulsion.
5. Delivery of the placenta.
6. Clamping of the placenta (if it occurs).
7. Cutting of the placenta.
(I've added 6 and 7 for completeness.)
Having chosen one of these, please explain why you chose that stage rather than any of the others.

The ability to sentience is essential, when we are discussing are we going to give - or give we not - human rights for some being. — Antinatalist

Why?

Given the fact we are talking about human being then we should give it human rights regardless of it's abilities.

I mean, something either is human being (it exists and is alive) or it is not (does not exist or it is dead)

The ability to sentience is essential, when we are discussing are we going to give - or give we not - human rights for some being.
— Antinatalist

Why?

Given the fact we are talking about human being then we should give it human rights regardless of it's abilities.

I mean, something either is human being (it exists and is alive) or it is not (does not exist or it is dead) — SpaceDweller

One thing is that, we can say a fetus is a human being by biological definition. I see slippery slope here and also a fallacy, which comes by natural language (when we simply use concept "human rights", like I also did).

A fetus can be human being by biological definition, but lack all the essential criterias, which are important when we evaluate a value of life of some being - is it by definition a human being or perhaps some animal.

"because 'the never-to-be-conceived person' fails to denote anything."

What makes you say that?

but lack all the essential criterias, which are important when we evaluate a value of life of some being — Antinatalist

I see your point, but current criterias are unfortunately not universally accepted.

Ending life is about human rights, so if those criterias are not governed by morality then aren't they exposed to immoral conclusions?

For example, if we exclude morality then we can also say that killing a retard person is favorable vs killing a normal one, or killing a 1 month old baby is favorable vs killing 30 years old person?

This is what most people may do if they're forced to death to choose.
Because one have to choose between 2 evils, so he chooses lesser one.

Morally they are all equal human beings regardless of their abilities, so I think the choice above should be random to be morally acceptable.

Same way if we exclude morality, and human rights don't apply to non sentient being, a fetus, then what makes this morally acceptable?

is it by definition a human being or perhaps some animal. — Antinatalist

I would not dare to compare human fetus to animal fetus and then draw conclusions based on perception or differences between 2 fetuses.

but lack all the essential criterias, which are important when we evaluate a value of life of some being
— Antinatalist

I see your point, but current criterias are unfortunately not universally accepted. — SpaceDweller

They are never.

Ending life is about human rights, so if those criterias are not governed by morality then aren't they exposed to immoral conclusions?

For example, if we exclude morality then we can also say that killing a retard person is favorable vs killing a normal one, or killing a 1 month old baby is favorable vs killing 30 years old person? — SpaceDweller

I don´t think that kind of immorality follows from my opinion about right for abortion (It is indeed moral obligation at first couple of months of pregnancy, that´s my opinion and is reasoned from my antinatalistic point of view).

This is what most people may do if they're forced to death to choose.
Because one have to choose between 2 evils, so he chooses lesser one.

Morally they are all equal human beings regardless of their abilities, so I think the choice above should be random to be morally acceptable.

Same way if exclude morality, and human rights don't apply to non sentient being, a fetus, then what makes this morally acceptable? — SpaceDweller

If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that abortion and killing already born person are morally at same level?


We have to look deeper to the concept like "the human rights". To the origin of ethics.

In moral philosophy is a concept of  "a person".  A person has always value, and her/his life is always valuable, at least according to most moral philosophers.
Most moral philosophers don´t define couple of months old fetus as a person. And some philosophers give the status of a person to some animals too. Of course those philosophers could be wrong, but I wrote this to clarify my point of view.

is it by definition a human being or perhaps some animal.
— Antinatalist

I would not dare to compare human fetus to animal fetus and then draw conclusions based on perception or differences between 2 fetuses. — SpaceDweller

At least at early stages of pregnancy I would. What makes human fetus so special compared to animal fetus? But I was meaning human fetus and comparing its life for already born animal´s life.

If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that abortion and killing already born person are morally at same level? — Antinatalist

Yes, I unless you don't have to choose between 2.

Because procreation (and protection of it) is natural to all known life, stopping procreation is not a natural thing, I think nowhere in the nature we can observe such behavior?

Except for us humans ofc, that would likely be very unusual or not a normal thing.

What makes human fetus so special compared to animal fetus?
But I was meaning human fetus and comparing its life for already born animal´s life. — Antinatalist

Because it's natural for one kind to protect it's own kind rather than other kind.

In moral philosophy is a concept of  "a person".  A person has always value, and her/his life is always valuable, at least according to most moral philosophers.
Most moral philosophers don´t define couple of months old fetus as a person. — Antinatalist

I understand, same problem as with current "criterias" that we currently have.

One may also ask. what is life and when does it begin?
Does sentience define life?

If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that abortion and killing already born person are morally at same level?
— Antinatalist

Yes, I unless you don't have to choose between 2. — SpaceDweller

Hard statement. Are you kind of person, who attacks to the abortion clinics?

Because procreation (and protection of it) is natural to all known life, stopping procreation is not a natural thing, I think nowhere in the nature we can observe such behavior?

Except for us humans ofc, that would likely be very unusual or not a normal thing. — SpaceDweller

That something is natural, it doesn´t make it good. You should google David Hume and Hume´s Guillotine.


What makes human fetus so special compared to animal fetus?
But I was meaning human fetus and comparing its life for already born animal´s life.
— Antinatalist

Because it's natural for one kind to protect it's own kind rather than other kind. — SpaceDweller

Like I said, that something is natural doesn´t make it good. Viruses are natural too, and cancer, for example.


In moral philosophy is a concept of  "a person".  A person has always value, and her/his life is always valuable, at least according to most moral philosophers.
Most moral philosophers don´t define couple of months old fetus as a person.
— Antinatalist

I understand, same problem as with current "criterias" that we currently have.

One may also ask. what is life and when does it begin?
Does sentience define life? — SpaceDweller

In my opinion sentience does not define life. But I think, most valuable and meaningful life is sentient.

Life is all around. Are viruses alive?
Plants are definitely alive.

Some people (like Cleve Backster) think that even plants are sentient beings.
I don´t believe that at all, but I have read his book from seventies; and in mid-nineties I read report from his scientifical/"scientifical" experiment, which purpose was to figure out do plants feel emotions (pain, in this particular experiment). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster

Having chosen one of these, please explain why you chose that stage rather than any of the others. — Herg

Asked and answered.

If there never has been a consciouness, you can't take it way. A lump of a few cells is not a person, but most people would agree that a foetus approaching full term already is an independent person with independent rights. The question is of a degree and does not suit a binary, black and white discourse.

But those people who do believe that a person is born at the moment of conception will then have no choice but force - if necessary - a 11 year old girl raped by her father to carry a child to full term. I mean you can't murder an innocent person whatever the context. And the greatest holocaust and sorrow in the world are the countless fertilized eggs that are self-terminated within days of the conception - a gigantic medical programme should be created to prevent this unimaginable killing field. Memorials to these billions of young persons (whether zygotes or embryos) that have died so tragically young should be scattered all over our human habitations.