Morally speaking no, because he would be harming a human being. But if there are people around the world who want to live in such barbaric societies, who can stop them?And if the doctor had no issues with the removal, that would be fine? — Banno
As far as I'm concerned rights do not exist. Talking about a "right to marry" is nonsense. There's no such right for anyone. If a priest refuses me to marry the woman I love, then he hasn't wronged me, because I don't have a "right to marry" in the first place. I will go look for another priest. But what I will not do is violently protest like a snowflake liberal about how oppressed I am...Nope. — Agustino
It's not a question of rights, it's a question of what's legally and morally permissible. It's not morally or legally permissible to use force to stop someone's expression. But there's no "rights" in there. Rights are fictions.So a religious (or nonreligious) person doesn't have the right to freedom of expression? — Michael
It's not a question of rights, it's a question of what's legally and morally permissible. It's not morally or legally permissible to use force to stop someone's expression. But there's no "rights" in there. Rights are fictions. — Agustino
In what sense is there no way to reconcile the two positions?and your point here is, as I understand you, that there is no way to reconcile our two positions? — Banno
Absolutely, just like an egg that has started to develop is a chicken.So your contention is that a blastocyst is a human being. — Banno
Saying that I have a right gives the impression that I am entitled to it. But I'm not entitled to anything. In this day and age all the leftists and liberals behave as if they're entitled to everything. That's outrageous.What's the difference between saying that it is morally (or legally) impermissible for me to restrict your freedom of expression and saying that you have a right to freedom of expression? Seems like much the same thing to me. — Michael
Yes that's exactly right. The difference between the two is that one case speaks of what's moral and immoral without making me entitled to something, while the other says that I'm entitled to have you behave morally to me, which is false. You should behave morally to me, but I'm not entitled to it.So you're not entitled to freedom of expression but it's wrong for me to restrict your freedom? Again, I fail to see the difference. — Michael
Then what is this below? :snot explaining what that difference is — Michael
The difference between the two is that one case speaks of what's moral and immoral without making me entitled to something, while the other says that I'm entitled to have you behave morally to me, which is false. You should behave morally to me, but I'm not entitled to it. — Agustino
In what sense is there no way to reconcile the two positions? — Agustino
Anything that is in the process of developing into a fully grown human being if there is no external interference (blastocyst, baby, child, teenager, etc.), and any person who is actually an adult or old woman/man.The difference is not moral, but about what counts as a human. — Banno
Linguistics. Yes, we linguistically distinguish between different stages of what a chicken is, but fact of the matter is that the egg is a necessary part of the life stages of a chicken. Why do we distinguish linguistically? Oh well, because, for one, you can do different things with an egg than you can with a fully grown chicken. But this isn't to say they're not both two different stages of the same life.That view is wide open to debate. I had a fried egg for breakfast, not a fried chicken. — Banno
Anything that is in the process of developing into a fully grown human being if there is no external interference (blastocyst, baby, child, teenager, etc.), and any person who is actually an adult or old woman/man. — Agustino
:s There's no philosophical yoga. It's an absolutely natural position. You need philosophical yoga to assert that a blastocyst - if left alone - doesn't develop into a fully grown human being. Now everyone understands what left alone means. It means you don't purposefully interfere with its development. And now you claim that it is parasitic on the woman's body - so what? If left alone, will it develop in a fully grown human being? Yes! A blastocyst is a necessary stage in the lifecycle of a human being.I have no great interest in the abortion debate; nor in the philosophical yoga you need in order to support a position you inherited from your religion. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.