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. — Sydasis

Ah then you are arguing D is SLED for Degree of Dependency

You mean that the pre-born are not as viable because they are still dependent on the mother and the womb and therefore have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care even still. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person whose independence is higher than your own.

The unborn is dependent upon the mother’s body for nutrition and a proper environment. It’s hard to see, though, how depending upon another person disqualifies you from being a person. Newborns and toddlers still depend upon their parents to provide nutrition and a safe environment. Indeed, some third-world countries require children to be breast fed because formula is not available. Can a mother kill her newborn son because he depends on her body for nutrition? Or, imagine you alone witnessed a toddler fall into a swimming pool. Would you be justified in declaring him not valuable simply because he depended on you for his survival? Of course not! Since the unborn depends on his mother in the same way, it’s not reasonable to disqualify his value either. Notice that although toddler and teens differ from each other in the four SLED categories, we don’t disqualify toddlers from personhood. Since born and unborn humans differ in exactly the same ways, we can’t disqualify the unborn from personhood either. You could do the same for (First Breath) by asking the person if I could kill him/her when he/she is holding his/her breath........or mental ability to think/be aware by asking the person if I can kill him/her when he/she is not thinking or asleep. In each instance, I can take their definition and apply it to a born human being thus showing the weakness of the argument (or lack thereof).

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/

No, I absolutely agree with objective morality, but you have not demonstrated objectively that once a thing has been identified as a human being it is automatically a moral duty to keep it alive.

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. — Sydasis

Schrodinger's baby?............Give me a break

but you have not demonstrated objectively that once a thing has been identified as a human being it is automatically a moral duty to keep it alive — Pseudonym

There is a moral duty not to murder it once alive.

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. — Sydasis

That is a FALSE dichotomy. Abortion (like the definition of 'murder' requires intention). Miscarriage, stillbirth or biological failure to implant in the uterus by natural causes is not the same thing. That is a retarded argument to make.

You still have some work to do if you want to offer a complete argument against abortion, form a utilitarian perspective — Pseudonym

Utilitarians are morally decrepit......NEXT!

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

That is a false dichotomy.

Comparing "me giving money to someone who is homeless or poor" to abortion is basically making the following argument.........

In order to be consistent, you have to agree to give free crap to these other people

The problem is that comparing "giving people free crap" to "NOT KILLING A HUMAN BEING IN COLD BLOOD" is logically fallacious.

Again, assume for a moment that pro-lifers really don’t care about what happens after birth. Would that make killing an unborn child defensible? Of course not. It’s a logical fallacy (an ad hominem attack, more specifically) to answer pro-life arguments by saying that you think pro-lifers are nasty people



In short..........your argument boils down to melodramatically shouting....."UNLESS YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE!" when someone doesn't agree with forcing me to pay for other people's stuff.

"In sum then, the charge should be laid to rest once and for all that the pro-life movement is not active on behalf of women, children, and vulnerable persons generally."

But that is not the charge. The charge is that people who want to dictate to women what responsibilities they should take not only with their bodies but for years thereafter, are less willing to take the same responsibilities in their own homes and lives. "I dictate to you your morality, but my morality is voluntary".

Comparing "me giving money to someone who is homeless or poor" to abortion is basically making the following argument......... — LostThomist

That is not the comparison. You giving money is cheap. I am asking you actually to take responsibility for the lives of others, as you expect women to take responsibility for the life of another. Your home, your care over years, not your mere money. Think you can buy your way into heaven?

There is a moral duty not to murder it once alive. — Thorongil

What's that got to do with it? No one's talking about murder.

Utilitarians are morally decrepit......NEXT! — LostThomist

And to think I wasted so much time in long ethical debates in my career. I wish I'd just come and asked you first.

I'm seeing a distinction without a difference.

No one's talking about murder. — Pseudonym

:brow:

There is a moral duty not to murder it once alive. — Thorongil

Murder is an unlawful killing. Given the legality of abortion, abortion isn't murder.

Thanks.

Murder is an unlawful killing. — Michael

And if murder were legal, that would make it okay? Surely not. Murder is intrinsically immoral. Laws don't make it so.

And if murder were legal, that would make it okay? — Thorongil

Murder is illegal by definition. Your question doesn't make any sense.

But that's not all it is. Murder is not merely illegal, it is in addition to that unjust and immoral.

Murder is intrinsically immoral. Laws don't make it so. — Thorongil

So is euthanasia murder?

But that's not all it is. Murder is not merely illegal, it is in addition to that unjust and immoral. — Thorongil

I didn't say it's merely illegal. I said that it's illegal by definition.

I said that it's illegal by definition. — Michael

Yes, and?

Yes, and? — Thorongil

And abortion isn't illegal, and so therefore not murder.

So is euthanasia murder? — Pseudonym

I haven't quite made up my mind on that issue, but I tend to think so, yes.

Abortion should be made illegal, because it's a form of murder. You seem to think that no laws can contradict.

Abortion should be made illegal, because it's a form of murder. — Thorongil

Murder is defined as "unlawful killing". Abortion isn't a form of unlawful killing. Therefore, abortion isn't a form of murder.

It seems you're equivocating over the word "unlawful," which can mean "not legal" or "not morally right." Abortion is lawful in the first sense at present, but not in the second. Because it's not lawful in the second sense, it ought to be made unlawful in the first.

It seems you're equivocating over the word "unlawful," which can mean "not legal" or "not morally right." Abortion is lawful in the first sense at present, but not in the second. Because it's not lawful in the second sense, it ought to be made unlawful in the first. — Thorongil

I'm not equivocating. I'm using it in the sense of "not legal" throughout.

It seems you're equivocating over the word "unlawful," which can mean "not legal" or "not morally right." Abortion is lawful in the first sense at present, but not in the second. Because it's not lawful in the second sense, it ought to be made unlawful in the first. — Thorongil

So your claim is that if something is not morally right then it ought be made illegal?

I'm using it in the sense of "not legal" throughout. — Michael

I got that already....

So your claim is that if something is not morally right then it ought be made illegal? — Michael

Mhmm.