In metaphysics there are accidental and substantial changes. — LostThomist

You completely missed the point.

To simply compare any 8 cells with the 8 cells in a developing human is an illogical comparison because any 8 skin cells cannot develop into a whole human body. — LostThomist

Hey - no fair. You respond so fast I don't get a chance to keep up.

Anyway - The accidental vs. substantial change distinction is Aristotle, right? So, it's not metaphysics, it's Aristotle's metaphysics. It's not true. It's not logical. It's just your way of looking at things.

Anyway - The accidental vs. substantial change distinction is Aristotle, right? So, it's not metaphysics, it't Aristotle's metaphysics. It's not true. It's not logical. It's just your way of looking at things. — T Clark

Actually.......that is Thomas Aquinas who was building on Aristotle to create "Metaphysics".

Fie. Only a few posts ago you were complaining - justifiably, I felt - that people had not responded philosophically to your ideas and were just dismissing them with shallow retorts. And yet you dismiss a whole school of thought with this quip?

I would hardly call Singer a philosopher much less sophisticated. — Thomist

What anybody calls him (and some people - mostly those that have never read his work - call him some very horrible things) is of no consequence. What matters is whether they can engage with his ideas - whether to try to rebut them or something else.

So if you are in a coma from which you may awake........can I stab you? — Thomist

As long as you make a clean job of it and finish me off, I would have no complaint to make. In working out whether you feel it is morally permissible however, you would need to take account of the feelings of those that have come to care about me. Even though I am not nearly as widely beloved as Taylor Smith or Beyoncé Noakes, I expect there would be enough people that would be quite upset about it that you would decide that the morally preferable path is to not stab me.

Even though I am not nearly as widely beloved as Taylor Smith or Beyoncé Noakes, I expect there would be enough people that would be quite upset about it that you would decide that the morally preferable path is to not stab me. — andrewk

That is a false dichotomy right there. I would much rather hear that someone stabbed Beyoncé in her coma than hear someone did the same to you.

See, I too can do good philosophy! :wink:

any attempt to say that the woman has a right to remove the baby (even if the intention is not to kill the baby) is like saying that I have a right to eject a stowaway in my plane after I have taken off. Yes that action alone does not directly kill the person, but if I threw that stowaway out of my plane at 30,000 feet, I would be in denial if I said that I did not know that the fall would kill him. The same goes with babies. Saying that a woman has a right to eject the baby from the womb at younger than 20-24 weeks would most assuredly kill the baby and even after 25 weeks, it is not a sure thing that a prematurely born baby would survive even with our new and updated technology in NICU wards. — LostThomist

The hormone in some birth control pills changes the lining of a women's uterus so that implantation of a fertilized egg is much less likely to occur. Whether abortion by means of birth control pill at zero-day or at week 22, the logic applied seems fairly similar. One might argue though that the common birth control pill has resulted in a negative natural replacement rate of people, which could be argued as societal suicide and a biological sin; far more damaging than the results of week 20 abortions.

Death is a common symptom of life though, as is natural selection, so I don't look at death as being overtly bad or good. What I understand though is that as this society we have determined that individuality has been deemed more important than the group. Whether for good or bad, an individual's rights takes precedent so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. One may not inflict harm on another unless it's in self defense.

After week 24, my understanding is that since a fetus *could* live independently of the mother's womb, hence the womb is then both considered technically alive and a person with rights. The mother can not do harm to the unborn child at this point unless it threatens the rights (life) of the mother. Although removing the baby at this point may not lead to the child's successful birth, lets consider the classical Schrodinger's cat experiment. We do not know if the cat inside the poisoned trapped box is alive or dead until we open the box, but until we do, the cat must be considered both alive and dead. If alive, it must be treated with rights.

An added note, but it would seem justifiable to kill the baby if it threatened the life of the mother, although I chuckle that it may be just as justifiable to kill the mother to save the baby in such a case. As for pre-week 24 abortions, I suspect that any time a man has sex with a women who is on the pill, they are likely accomplices to abortions they may not even be aware of.

So after all that, let's say, for the sake of argument, you have proven that a foetus, at any age is a human being. Now prove to me that killing an innocent human being is immoral in all circumstances. If someone was in terminal pain but could not speak to express their wishes, would killing them be immoral? If someone was in a complete vegetative state from which they were unlikely to revive, would turning off the life support be immoral? You may have your own moral ideas formed by your religion, but these are relatively modern by human standards. Tribal cultures have been practising infanticide for thousands of years on babies they know they cannot care for, and although demonstrably traumatic for the whole tribe, it is justified (by them) on the basis that the life the child could expect would be one of suffering which, if the child could express a wish, they would not want. The fact that modern medicine can offer abortion is massive improvement on the same principle.

You still have some work to do if you want to offer a complete argument against abortion, form a utilitarian perspective, you have to balance the harms, from a virtue ethic you need to show what virtue is being cultivated by bringing a life into the world which is more likely than not to suffer, in deontology, universalizing a principle that all humans must be kept alive whilst it is possible to do so would cause massive problems for the permanently comatose.

So let's have the rest of your argument - the part where you show how, once we've concluded that a foetus is actually a human, that it follows automatically that we cannot terminate it.

So let's have the rest of your argument - the part where you show how, once we've concluded that a foetus is actually a human, that it follows automatically that we cannot terminate it. — Pseudonym

Are you a human? Can I terminate you?

Yes, any time I'm in permanent pain, any time my life would almost certainly be one of suffering, any time I'm in a state where there is no-one to care for me and I have no sense of what the world is, no hopes or feelings, then yes, you may terminate me. 6,000 people a year in the UK unfortunately make that decision for themselves, it's a perfectly normal decision to make.

Normal? What's normal about it? This is great; we suddenly arrive at a purely emotional argument when we get here.

Normal - "usual, typical or expected". What part of the definition are you not getting?

:lol:

Btw, I was laughing at your comment that 6,000 people in the UK decide to end their own lives is "normal".

Yes, the decision to end a life in the face of interminable suffering is unfortunately normal (in the sense that it is typical or to be expected). I fully 'expect' that another 6,000 people will make a similar decision next year.

Is there something about that you find funny?

Why would you assume I find that funny? To the contrary, I find your expression of that situation horrifying.

That reality is only normal within a modern world in which these things are possible. I couldn't give a rat's ass about that "normal" modern world. The ability doesn't suggest the moral.

That reality is only normal within a modern world in which these things are possible. — Noble Dust

No, infanticide is unfortunately considered necessary in many tribal cultures and paleoanthropological evidence seems to suggest it has been since human culture began, so yes the decision to end a life in the face of interminable suffering is, unfortunately 'normal'.

The ability doesn't suggest the moral. — Noble Dust

I haven't in any of my posts suggested it does. I've merely pointed out that it cannot be taken as given that because a foetus can be considered a human being, it automatically follows that it is immoral to terminate it.

THEREFORE: There is no other place other than conception that can be the metaphysical beginning of personhood — LostThomist

This doesn't follow.

No, infanticide is unfortunately considered necessary in many tribal cultures and paleoanthropological evidence seems to suggest it has been since human culture began, so yes the decision to end a life in the face of interminable suffering is, unfortunately 'normal'. — Pseudonym

Sure, maybe that was my mistake, then; but to call infanticide "normal"? Normal has an ontological and epistemological connotation beyond simple cultural acceptance. Normal against what?

Further more, I don't care about paleoanthropomorphicaloligal evidence (typo on purpose). I can't be bothered to give a shit.

Normal has an ontological and epistemological connotation beyond simple cultural acceptance. Normal against what? — Noble Dust

Well I'd agree, but the only contender might be biological, which is also evidenced by study of ancient remains. How were you imagining we might approach a view of what's 'normal'? Random guesswork, we all have a shout about what we 'reckon' and the most popular one wins?

Further more, I don't care about paleoanthropomorphicaloligal evidence — Noble Dust

No, we can't let evidence get in the way of a good reckon.

It seems to me that these arguments always turn on an emotional appeal, a line being drawn between human/person and not, and a sort of legalistic argument about slippery slopes or whatever. Personally, I am not one to sing the praises of abortion, nor to bang on about the rights of women or of the unborn.

But I wonder, I really wonder why so much time is spent on this issue. Why are there no philosophers and no threads arguing that when a homeless person freezes to death while there are warm places locked up all around him, that is murder; that refusing your spare bedroom to a refugee is murder.

If it wrong for a woman to refuse to sustain and house someone in her body who has need, then it is wrong to refuse to sustain and house any person who has need. People are being neglected, suffering and dying all around you, but men like to focus on the one issue where their own innocence is assured.

men like to focus on the one issue where their own innocence is assured. — unenlightened

Very insightful comment. I hadn't thought of it like that.

The point of mentioning the metaphysical argument for biologically human life beginning at conception is to disprove any future argument which denies the humanity as a basis for abortion being moral.

Then.....I go on to argue against those who separate biological humanness from personhood — LostThomist

I use the word "magically" somewhat sarcastically........but what I mean by that is that...........the other places to use as the starting point for life would make it seem like a baby just popped into existence, whereas with conception you can see how it came about and thus proves itself more valid as an explanation.

Differentiating "hand waving" as an explanation for things from being able to show the causality — LostThomist

Wouldn't the zygote have to be a human life in order for it to be considered human life, though?

What about conception makes that point preferable and not "hand waving" to be human life and better than other points?

There isn't much significant difference, from my perspective, before and after. In fact I don't think you're likely to find any one point where there is going to be a significant difference, before and after.

Especially if you're just talking about biological life, from a scientific perspective.

Why are there no philosophers and no threads arguing that when a homeless person freezes to death while there are warm places locked up all around him, that is murder; that refusing your spare bedroom to a refugee is murder. — unenlightened

For these examples to be parallel with abortion, one would have to set them up so that a homeless man or a refugee has his neck snapped by a doctor and is sucked into a giant vacuum cleaner, otherwise, they bear no resemblance to abortion.

Also, these examples you've given are ironically emotional appeals.

For these examples to be parallel with abortion, one would have to set the scenarios up so that a homeless man or a refugee has his neck snapped by a doctor and is sucked into a giant vacuum cleaner, otherwise, they bear no resemblance to abortion.

Also, these examples you've given are ironically emotional appeals. — Thorongil

Unlike your post? What a ridiculous claim to make. The resemblance is that humans are suffering and dying through no fault of their own, and it can be greatly reduced by moralists doing something about it that will inconvenience them; that is they can take responsibility for another life. But the same people who fulminate against abortion do not want to take responsibility for any of the many unwanted children languishing in care homes, let alone people whose lives they could save.

But the same people who fulminate against abortion do not want to take responsibility for any of the many unwanted children languishing in care homes, let alone people whose lives they could save. — unenlightened

A very large, unwarranted assumption. It's actually false: https://www.conservativebookclub.com/book/who-really-cares-americas-charity-divide-who-gives-who-doesnt-and-why-it-matters-2

But I wonder, I really wonder why so much time is spent on this issue. Why are there no philosophers and no threads arguing that when a homeless person freezes to death while there are warm places locked up all around him, that is murder; that refusing your spare bedroom to a refugee is murder. — unenlightened

Very simple - I could give my couch to a refugee to sleep, but how do I know that he won't turn around and rob me, or harm my family, etc.? I have no such guarantee, hence I'm not willing to take the risk. In addition, I am not directly responsible for his plight and suffering, the way the woman would be with regards to her child (in most circumstances).

If it wrong for a woman to refuse to sustain and house someone in her body who has need, then it is wrong to refuse to sustain and house any person who has need. — unenlightened

Except that the woman most of the time (excluding cases of rape) is partly responsible for the child who is there, whereas I am not, in any direct way, responsible for the refugee or any random person who has need.

As long as you make a clean job of it and finish me off, I would have no complaint to make. In working out whether you feel it is morally permissible however, you would need to take account of the feelings of those that have come to care about me. Even though I am not nearly as widely beloved as Taylor Smith or Beyoncé Noakes, I expect there would be enough people that would be quite upset about it that you would decide that the morally preferable path is to not stab me. — andrewk

Well now you have said both.............no double talk.....yes or no?

That review doesn't explain which charities are being supported and what volunteer work is being done (except for a mention of "the arts and the environment"). Is there some other source that shows that pro-life advocates (rather than "conservatives", as "conservatives" can include pro-choice fiscal conservatives) provide for child (or adult) welfare specifically?

If someone was in terminal pain but could not speak to express their wishes, would killing them be immoral? — Pseudonym

YES if they did not ask you to do it

If someone was in a complete vegetative state from which they were unlikely to revive, would turning off the life support be immoral? — Pseudonym

YES unless that was their expressly written wish to do so

You may have your own moral ideas formed by your religion, but these are relatively modern by human standards — Pseudonym

So you don't believe in objective standards of morality? If that is true.....then why should I not go down to a store and shoot it up because I want to?

Here's an article that reviews Brooks' book, and highlights the issue I raised above.

The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.