I haven't quite made up my mind on that issue, — Thorongil

Right, so it is either untrue to say that all killing of another person is automatically murder, or untrue to say that all murder is automatically morally wrong (if, for some reason, you want to define murder other than by its legal definition).

Either way, there are circumstances in which the killing of a completely innocent person is not automatically morally wrong.

Which means that, if you want to make an argument that abortion is morally wrong, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the foetus is a person, you must go on to say why it is that killing that particular person, in those circumstances, is wrong (like murder) and not ambiguous (like euthanasia).

either untrue to say that all killing of another person is automatically murder — Pseudonym

Yes, it is untrue to say this. Killing someone unintentionally and/or in self-defense isn't murder. Killing a heinous criminal wouldn't be murder but capital punishment. Abortion is murder because it intentionally kills an innocent life.

there are circumstances in which the killing of a completely innocent person is not automatically morally wrong — Pseudonym

No there aren't, and it is for this reason that I lean toward believing euthanasia is murder. My indecision is due primarily to certain grey areas involving non-physician-assisted "suicide." I'm not sure if someone deliberately refusing to take their medications, for example, would count as suicide (and thus euthanasia), and I'm not sure if suicide counts as murder. But my indecision in these areas doesn't affect my claim with respect to abortion.

1) For the purpose of a clear argument I will (for the time being) separate being biologically human from any concept of personhood. In doing so it is undeniable to say that biological human life begins at conception. — LostThomist

Wrong! You have stumbled at the first hurdle. There is no point trying to get this rather clumsy straw man into the thread.

But my indecision in these areas doesn't affect my claim with respect to abortion. — Thorongil

Of course it does. We've agreed that there are circumstances under which the morality of killing of an innocent person needs to be justified. The very fact that you are undecided about euthanasia, no matter what your 'leaning' demonstrates that other factors need to be considered. Were that not the case, there would be no deliberation necessary, euthanasia would be automatically morally wrong, end of discussion. But there is a discussion, you have taken other factors into consideration, so let's discuss those factors, rather than ignore them in favour of some moral absolutism that isn't really there.

Take the sperm and the egg. The sperm and egg alone cannot grow a fully functional human body. It is not until the sperm and egg meet that a substantial change happens — LostThomist

Arbitrary. The fertilised egg, and the foetus that it evolves toward is a property of the body that contains it, and it is only through her effort and permission that a "human life" can be born of it.
Any attempt to try to characterise the foetus ( a thing completely dependant on the body of a woman) as a 'human life" or "person" is an attempt to deny the bodily rights of women.
If you want to act like a Victorian, find yourself a time machine.

The very fact that you are undecided about euthanasia — Pseudonym

I qualified what I was undecided about with respect to euthanasia, which you have ignored. I'm not undecided about one person taking the innocent life of another. If that's what euthanasia is, then I'm totally opposed to it.

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. — Michael

Appeal to authority. That is a logical fallacy.

Then by the same logic, the holocaust was also ok because it was lawfully passed by the recognized German Parliament, Slavery was only because it was legal along with segregation.

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

Murder: The killing of another human being with intent

Abortion: The killing of a fetus

Fetus: A developing human

Still not sure @LostThomist what makes you believe that conception is important. The best guesses I can make, based on what I've heard people say before, are not good criteria for human life. Usually when someone tries to argue that conception is biologically speaking human life they do so because the cell has a unique set of chromosomes -- the DNA which will proliferate throughout their body after said body has developed.

But I sincerely doubt that the mere presence of a unique strand of DNA is enough to qualify anything as life. DNA, after all, can and has been synthesized, one amino acid at a time. We do not think of these products as life, period, much less human life.

Potentiality is another criteria often brought up. But potentiality belongs to the gametes as much as the zygote. Is the menstrual cycle murder? I think not. Nocturnal emission? No.

Further, if we are relying upon biology I'd say we're actually looking at the problem from the wrong angle. Biology is the study of life as a whole. It's definition of life is largely differentiating what is alive from what is inanimate. It's not really looking at what is alive vs. what is dead. It's looking at species and ecologies, not individuals.

Also, if we're strictly scientific, there is no moral property you can ascertain from scientific observation. An individual does not become morally worthy at some point because it is alive in the eyes of science. So while we may reference this or that fact we will, very obviously, also have to introduce some sort of moral criteria and not pass our argument off as somehow scientific.

Lastly, given all that, I think the conception of time which this argument generally presupposes is entirely off. Organisms are alive in a continuum. They need to meet many criteria before they are definitively so, or before they are definitely dead. There are no necessary or sufficient conditions which are clear cut -- and certainly no singular event or point along the timeline of an individual life where something becomes morally worthy or not. The closest we might come to defining death comes from the medical field, but it's a bit hazy too. Life? There really just isn't a good point to pick where something becomes important, and before which it is not because the facts of the matter -- how life works -- doesn't easily fit into our desired legal framework.

Appeal to authority. That is a logical fallacy. — LostThomist

There's no appeal to authority. Murder is defined as unlawful killing, and so if abortion is lawful then it isn't murder.

Then by the same logic, the holocaust was also ok because it was lawfully passed by the recognized German Parliament, Slavery was only because it was legal along with segregation.

That's not the same logic at all. I didn't say that abortion is OK. I said that abortion isn't murder.

Murder: The killing of another human being with intent — LostThomist

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent. This contrasts with something like capital punishment, which although the killing of another human being with intent, isn't murder because it's lawful.

True.....and I agree with how you distinguished the death penalty and murder in genera..........

But you again missed my point. My point was that simply saying it is morally acceptable because it is legal is a fallacious appeal to authority. The same is true tor trying to excuse abortion simply because it is currently legal.

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

I'm afraid that line makes no sense to me at all.
If you have an argument to make, please make it and I'll do my best to respond respectfully.

You did not answer my question. You answered by saying both answers taht contradict each other.

I will try again.


If you are in a coma from which you may awake......would it be moral for me to kill you?

My point was that simply saying it is morally acceptable because it is legal is a fallacious appeal to authority. — LostThomist

I didn't say that.

The same is true tor trying to excuse abortion simply because it is currently legal. — LostThomist

I didn't do that.

then what is your argument?

My argument is that murder is unlawful killing, that abortion isn't unlawful, and so therefore that abortion isn't murder.

You are appealing to the authority of the law to determine what is moral........but there are laws that were and are immoral.

your argument is invalid and fallacious

If you are in a coma from which you may awake......would it be moral for me to kill you? — LostThomist

That's not the question you asked. You asked 'can I stab you?', and I answered that question by saying that I would not mind, as long as you succeeded in killing me.

Your new question is more relevant to the topic, so let's look at that. My answer is that, based on my moral framework, which is principally preference utilitarian, and almost certainly different from yours, that would depend on how much emotional harm such an act would cause. You don't need to worry about emotional harm to me, because I won't even know what happened. But you do need to consider the emotional harm to those that care about me. You would need to make the evaluation yourself but I would be surprised if you did not reach the conclusion that such an act would cause significant emotional harm to those that know me as a person and who have come to care for me, and thus that it would be immoral.

Such an evaluation would not apply in the case of an embryo or foetus, as nobody has come to know it as a person. The only possible exception to that is the mother who, for an advanced foetus, may feel a relationship arising from the movements she detects. But since she has the right of veto over abortion (otherwise it will be immoral on everybody's evaluation), that makes it hard to imagine that a voluntary abortion would be immoral on that count.

The same is true tor trying to excuse abortion simply because it is currently legal. — LostThomist

It's nothing to do with you, what a woman does with her own body. Forcing her to carry a foetus is a right you do not have.

Then by the same logic, the holocaust was also ok because it was lawfully passed by the recognized German Parliament, Slavery was only because it was legal along with segregation. — LostThomist

False analogy. We are talking about abusing the rights of a woman who may not wish to carry a foetus just because YOU decide she should. The legal killing or enslaving of people are different cases.

well I contend your "claim" that abortion is a right

↪charleton well I contend your "claim" that abortion is a right — LostThomist

("Contest" I think you mean)
But you have no grounds. A woman's body is not yours to violate with your personal moral stance.

Appeal to authority. That is a logical fallacy. — LostThomist

That isn't an appeal of authority, it's the correction of a category mistake. "Murder" is a legal term. It defines "unlawful killing". Tautologically, abortion isn't murder, because it is not unlawful.

Of course that's a very trite argument. Obviously Thorongil refered to a moral acceptation of the terms "murder", and not the legal one.

You are appealing to the authority of the law to determine what is moral — LostThomist

No I'm not.

your argument is invalid and fallacious

How so? It seems straightforward to me:

1. Murder is unlawful killing
2. Abortion is not unlawful killing
3. Therefore, abortion is not murder

If it helps, consider this argument which uses the same reasoning:

1. A bachelor is an unmarried man
2. John is not an unmarried man
3. Therefore, John is not a bachelor

It’s hard to see, though, how depending upon another person disqualifies you from being a person. — LostThomist

In virology class, I recall the definition of life being a talking point. Is a Prion or Virus a life form? The general scientific consensus seemed to be that viruses were not alive, as they were dependent on the host; I believe they are dependent on reproduction and metabolism. It becomes fairly easy then to see how an unborn fetus could be seen as perhaps nothing more than a cancerous tumor, triggered by foreign DNA entering the body.

A retrovirus for example will inject itself into a human's genome, reproducing itself, and potentially leading to cancerous cell growth. We don't necessarily call that new corrupted lump of tissue a new life form -- it's just a tumor.

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?

Based on the principals of our society, the rights of the individual, on some level this is indeed the case. I do not legally need to donate blood, nor do I need to legally donate a kidney to someone who might otherwise die. Thankfully for unwanted infants, the child can be dropped off for rescue at a firestation or such zones without question. Since there is a viable option for mothers in a situation, choosing an action that would lead to the death of their child is negligence. Of course, deciding to keep the child as well binds you to a contract of responsibility, where failure to live up to those obligations is also seen as negligence.

I think that most instances of abortion ought to be legal, but not publicly funded. I see no reason for the state to interfere with the carrying out of abortion if the human life in the womb is not given a social security number and considered a citizen until after they've been born. Although the state does make value judgments, I wouldn't say that the state makes ethical choices, seeing as the state is neither self conscious nor an individual. Because of this, I don't think the state, being the governor of society that it is, has the justification to outlaw abortion unless unborn human life is considered the same as the born human life. Not seeing an unborn human life, however, being treated by the state exactly the same as those who are already born and operating in society. The priority, from the state's perspective, is those born, not unborn. In other words, the state ought not care about a human life until it is born, which is when the state then has the jurisdiction over the life because it has become a part of that which the state must serve and protect - its citizenry.

That said, I find abortion morally reprehensible and revolting on about every level. The most abortion can ever be is a necessary evil, an evil I don't want my tax dollars funding, by the way. In the end I think it'll be more worthwhile if society addresses the underlying problem of promiscuous sex so that abortions are not as appallingly common as they are now. Abortion being used not as an emergency procedure but a form of birth control is what requires cultural and societal pressure.

Whence do the laws of the state acquire their authority, if not in the degree to which they reflect the natural (moral) law? If they are contrary to the natural law, one is obligated not merely not to follow them but to oppose them. Thus, if slavery is unjust, which is to say, unlawful according to the natural law, then any positive law that legitimizes the practice must be unjust. To say of slavery that it "ought to be legal" is to say that an unlawful law ought to be lawful, a self-contradiction. The same applies to abortion. If you are convinced that abortion is "morally reprehensible," as you say, you must oppose the positive law that protects it.

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

You're playing with words here. You know what Thorongil is saying. If it's not murder, what is it? What is the word for immoral killing of another human, whether or not it's illegal?