Abortion

[atinymonkey]

There seems to be a rather large segment in society that would disagree that there has been no loss in the case of an abortion.

Yes, there may well be a large segment in the US that are anti abortion. There is an equally large segment that is pro abortion. That people believe in an idea adds no weight to an argument.

 

In the eyes of the law, society is affected by the murder of an individual. Society is not affected by early term abortion. I'd love to hear a theory why that is not so.

 

Do you think that the fetus is somehow inhuman? that it should hive absolutely no more rights to be protected by society than finger nail clippings?

Extending a counterpoint to ridiculous extremes is called strawmanning, it's pointless and only serves to highlight the flaws in your argument.

 

No, I don't happen to think that a fetus is inhuman. That's idiotic. No, I don't ascribe toenails the same rights as unborn children, that again is ridiculous. I don't expect individuals to shoot people in the back of the head simply because they don't disagree with abortion, that's a childish assumption.

 

My point is that the murder of an individual is perceived by the state to lessen society. The abortion of an early stage pregnancy does not lessen society. Ergo early stage abortion is not murder as the state defines it, so comparisons with the murder of a fully grown individual are invalid.

 

I've yet to find legal president in any democratic court that shows such a impact on society.

[atinymonkey]

Do you think that the fetus is somehow inhuman? /QUOTE]

The Nazis' first step in their final solution was to classify Jews (along with other "inferior" groups) as sub-human. This allowed them to justify the murder of millions. Some of the Nazis responsible for these crimes were sentenced as breakers of international law. If a person can convince themselves that a fetus is less than human (sub-human) and can be justly killed then what uniform are they wearing?

 

Funny you should say that. The Third Reich was the most stringent anti abortion state ever to exist.

 

That, and the invoking of Godwin's Law, kills of any point you may have had.

[Mart]

 

Funny you should gibber that. The Third Reich was the most stringent anti abortion state ever to exist.

 

That and Godwin's Law kills of any point you may have had.

Apologies for gibbering, atinymonkey

I was trying to explain that some people regard abortion as NOT murder. They sometimes justify this by saying that the fetus is not human or not sufficiently human. I used the Nazi program as a way of evidencing this type of thinking.

Godwin's Law? I haven't heard of that. Can you help?

[atinymonkey]

Yeah, I rephrased my reply to remove rudeness. Sorry about that. I was in a hurry to invoke 'Link to Godwins Law' !

 

I actually don't have an opinon either way on abortion, I just didn't like the comparison with shooting a person in the head.

[syntax252]

Yes' date=' there may well be a large segment in the US that are anti abortion. There is an equally large segment that is pro abortion. That people believe in an idea adds no weight to an argument.

 

In the eyes of the law, society is affected by the murder of an individual. Society is not affected by early term abortion. I'd love to hear a theory why that is not so. [/quote']

 

We all know what the law is. I thought we were discussing the moral/ethical merits of abortion.....

 

Extending a counterpoint to ridiculous extremes is called strawmanning, it's pointless and only serves to highlight the flaws in your argument.

 

But it does bring out whether or not you think of an unborn child as human or not.

 

No, I don't happen to think that a fetus is inhuman. That's idiotic. No, I don't ascribe toenails the same rights as unborn children, that again is ridiculous. I don't expect individuals to shoot people in the back of the head simply because they don't disagree with abortion, that's a childish assumption.

 

My point is that the murder of an individual is perceived by the state to lessen society. The abortion of an early stage pregnancy does not lessen society. Ergo early stage abortion is not murder as the state defines it, so comparisons with the murder of a fully grown individual are invalid.

 

I've yet to find legal president in any democratic court that shows such a impact on society.

 

I didn't suggest that someone be shot because they didn't disagree with abortion. Where didja get that idea?

 

And again, we all know what the law says.

 

Now, since you equate the unborn as something more than just unwanted meat, don't you think that killing it should be preceeded by a considerable amount of thought about the justification?

[atinymonkey]

We all know what the law is. I thought we were discussing the moral/ethical merits of abortion.....

The thread is, but you are making invalid comparisons between murder and abortion in order to justify ill defined ethical positions. The only reason I posted was to make the point that your comparison was invalid.

 

 

But it does bring out whether or not you think of an unborn child as human or not.

Nor will it. I'm not attempting to enter into a discussion about at what phase a sperm and an egg become capable of being defined as a human entity. That definition has already been made by the medical community by labeling the trimester, and it will not alter according to your belief structure.

 

I didn't suggest that someone be shot because they didn't disagree with abortion. Where didja get that idea?

Your deliberately ignoring your own posts that are making the invalid comparison between muder and abortion: -

 

What you said is that since a pregnancy offers inconveince to the pregnant person that she is morally intitled to kill the fetus' date=' even though you agree that the fetus is a baby human being. You justify it by saying that the fetus is incapable of feeling pain, and is not aware of himself.

 

If you shot a person through the back of the head without warning, he would feel no pain, nor would he be aware that he had been killed.[/quote']

The above is logical fallacy, and as such an invalid counterpoint and useless argument.

 

And again, we all know what the law says.

You apparently do not. If you did, you would not make the crass comparisons that you seem to enjoy.

 

Now, since you equate the unborn as something more[/b'] than just unwanted meat, don't you think that killing it should be preceeded by a considerable amount of thought about the justification?

I have implicitly stated I have no opinion in regards the status of human development. If your attempting to draw me into what is obviously playschool level debates, your not going to do it by inferring I have an argument where I have none.

 

Focus on presenting you are counterpoints and rebuttals within the linear context of the thread.

[syntax252]

The thread is' date=' but you are making invalid comparisons between murder and abortion in order to justify ill defined ethical positions. The only reason I posted was to make the point that your comparison was invalid.

* snip *

 

Focus on presenting you are counterpoints and rebuttals within the linear context of the thread.[/quote']

 

Well, OK. I don't think you are capable of remembering what you yourself post, so if you would rather not defend your statements, that is all right by me....

[Sayonara]

The ball's in your court. Read my private post. I would be grateful if you reciprocated my intention to keep it private.

I hardly think you consider the ball to be in my court when you send a provocative pm like that.

If you have an "intention to keep it private" you won't mind stopping trailing me around, posting vapid and snide comments after every one of my posts. Or go one better and keep it in your head - that's pretty private.

 

Agreed. But then which animals would you nominate?

None.

 

The first thing I'd do (assuming I cared enough to do it, which I don't) is derive a working definition of what consciousness is, which nobody seems to be able to successfully do. Assuming we had such a definition we would then need a way of identifying such a condition.

 

 

If no animals apart from humans have any consciousness (which may be true) how would you explain this using evolutionary theory. I am asking for your expertise here since you have a degree in applied biology. Remember I'm not an expert but I'm not a complete idiot (but then you know that otherwise you wouldn't have bothered answering my post )

I would not necessarily pigeon-hole it as something that can be explained purely in evolutionary terms (depending on how much you stretch the definition of evolution, obviously). However, if I did, the causes for consciousness apparently being unique to humans need not be considered any differently to the causes of any other unique characteristics in any other species.

[In My Memory]

Syntax,

 

What you said is that since a pregnancy offers inconveince to the pregnant person that she is morally intitled to kill the fetus' date=' even though you agree that the fetus is a baby human being. You justify it by saying that the fetus is incapable of feeling pain, and is not aware of himself.

 

If you shot a person through the back of the head without warning, he would feel no pain, nor would he be aware that he had been killed.[/quote']

Aardvark brought up a similar comment earilier (see post #102).

 

I can see how an argument like yours can be made, but the truth is that I cant think of any way to justify it. What reason do I have to assume that a person has no interest in their own continued existence, or even more to see their existenced terminated, simply because they arent aware of someone about to kill them? Excluding remarkable situations (such as guerilla operations to kill terrorists before they kill others), I dont think there is one.

 

I'm no psychic, but I can predict what you might ask next - you probably want to know why killing a person behind their back without suffering is morally harmful at all. If so, I would first explain that suffering and consideration of interest of others are two moral standards I hold that are immediately relevant, then I would go full circle to simply reiterat that I find violating a person's interests is morally harmful and unethical. Of course, I would probably add that, all things being equal, it is less unethical to kill a person without their conscious suffering than to torture them beforehand (but that shouldnt be read as mysteriously justifying the idea of killing a person against their interests).

 

That is the whole point in saying "Why not just limit the ethical implications of awareness to the capacity to suffer and hold interests?" (from post #112).

 

Now, consider that an unborn person doesnt have any interests, and no ability to suffer (this is in very stark contrast to a person asleep or walking through a park). When you weigh the two morally relevant standards of interests and suffering of an unborn person against that of the fully rational mother, the weight on the side of the unborn person is null and will be outweighed by any conflicting interest of the rational mother. The only way the situation you have outlined can be compared to abortion is if you think people drop complete interest in their own existence in the times they arent aware of it being threatened - which I dont really think a strong argument can be made for.

 

As I've mentioned before, people would have a very difficult time trying to find a reason explaining the moral implications of killing someone behind their back (or likewise in their sleep, in a coma, or taking human lives at all) that didnt have something to do with the amount of suffering involved or the moral importance of equal considerational of interests.

 

Again, I apologize if I am unclear and it becomes hard for you to follow the things I have to say.

 

 

TimeTraveler,

 

My opinion is there is no right answer that everyone will agree on, instead of debating it maybe we should spend more time researching solutions.

Yes, I would agree, but I'm not really sure how much can really be accomplished. Because, almost always, like looping two strings of logic together, solutions will likely be judged first by how morally appropriate they are, which reduces itself down to the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion.

 

Example of a solution (not sure how realistic) - A shot that could be administered at a young age to prevent pregnancy' date=' then when a women is ready to have a child another shot could be administered to reverse the process.

 

I know that is seriously over simplifying it and wishing for things that may not be possible, but I think research into ideas along these lines may be the best way to come up with a solution.[/quote']

We already have something similar to that - its a form of contraceptive called depo-provera (or otherwise known as "the shot"). It isnt a miracle drug like the one you've described above, but is the closest thing that comes to mind.

 

There is a common saying that is something to the effect of "one way to stop 99.9% of all abortions is to use contraception".

[TimeTraveler]

Because, almost always, like looping two strings of logic together, solutions will likely be judged first by how morally appropriate they are, which reduces itself down to the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion.

 

Exactly, which is pointless because no one knows a morally right or wrong answer. All we have is our opinions.

 

There is a common saying that is something to the effect of "one way to stop 99.9% of all abortions is to use contraception".

 

Good point. So maybe it should be illegal simply for the purpose that maybe then 99% of people not wishing to have a baby will use those contraceptives, because as long as it is not illegal there is no real motivation to use contraceptives except your personal morality, which people tend to forget about at times.

[syntax252]

Syntax' date='

 

Aardvark brought up a similar comment earilier (see post #102).

 

I can see how an argument like yours can be made, but the truth is that I cant think of any way to justify it. What reason do I have to assume that a person has no interest in their own continued existence, or even more to see their existenced terminated, simply because they arent aware of someone about to kill them? Excluding remarkable situations (such as guerilla operations to kill terrorists before they kill others), I dont think there is one.

 

* snip *

 

Again, I apologize if I am unclear and it becomes hard for you to follow the things I have to say.

 

Well I would be the first to agree that it would be morally wrong to kill someone without good reason, including but not limited to self defense, in defense of another,in a war, or as punishment for murder.

 

What I am having trouble understanding is why you think it is morally OK to kill someone who has not been born yet simply because that person has not yet had an opportunity to have experienced life outside the womb.

 

It is almost as if once one has been exposed to the atmosphere, something majic happens that makes his existence somehow more sacred that it was prior to delivery.

 

Do you think that the point at which the pregnancy is interrupted is of any consequence? Does the desires of the mother trump the life of the baby right up to the point of delivery?

[In My Memory]

Syntax,

 

What I am having trouble understanding is why you think it is morally OK to kill someone who has not been born yet simply because that person has not yet had an opportunity to have experienced life outside the womb.

 

It is almost as if once one has been exposed to the atmosphere' date=' something majic happens that makes his existence somehow more sacred that it was prior to delivery.[/quote']

Usually, when it comes to abortion, the typical rights-based conflicts that people talk about are right to privacy, autonomy, life, choice, etc. (these rights can usually be housed under the umbrella term "self-determination").

 

A lot of people feel birth matters morally as a threshold for moral equality as opposed to a later period - I think one good reason is that you can grant equal rights of self-determination to a born infant without violating the rights of self-determination of anyone else. This is not the same thing as declaring life sacred at the time of birth.

 

But I dont think its morally permissable to kill someone simply because they lack an experienced life outside of the womb - in fact that sounds like a wildly irrational way to grant rights to someone (are rights also granted to people for other other experiences, such as playing the stock market? Probably not). At the same time, I dont imagine I would argue the same criteria for other types of situations (for instance, I would never say it is morally impermissable to allow a terminally ill and suffering patient the right to die because he's had experience in the world - I have a hard time connecting the moral dots to follow that kind of argument). I suspect I'm taking your "simply because that person has not yet had an opportunity to experience life outside the womb" comment too literally.

 

 

I dont mean to give a lesson in philosophy, but I just want to sum up some of the basic things I think about abortion, so please dont mind if I'm winded:

 

I dont believe life is sacred, in fact I feel that some of the basic premises in the sanctity of life argument are corrupted - and therefore the conclusions for sanctity of life arguments are corrupted as well.

 

The sacredness of life as posed as a moral standard basically means "it is morally intolerable to take the lives of innocent humans". This sounds very reasonable, and actually seems to work alright in practice - the natural implications of sacred status being that it would be impermissable to kill unborn people as well. (Some people try to justify abortion on the grounds that an unborn person really isnt a person, and therefore its life isnt sacred nor necessarily morally relevant. I actually find the "it isnt yet a person" arguments to be incredibly unsophisticated, philosophically amateurish, scientifically uncredible, and intellectually laughable way to justify pro-choice - wow, that sounds so much more harsh than I intended, but the point stands that there are better arguments for pro-choice than calling a unborn person something other than a person.)

 

But sacredness of life has always seemed to apply strictly the human beings, and this is where the problem arises. It doesnt seem obvious to me why such a special right should be granted only the humans, and not to other organisms. I dont think its rational at all to grant only human beings certain rights for the virtue of being human anymore than I think its rational to grant rights on other arbitrary characteristics like race, gender, whether you play the stock market, etc.

 

It takes a lot to bite the bullet by allowing certain activities to be deemed morally acceptable (or at least not so unethical to make it impermissable), such as painful animal experimentation - but then to declare the same activity to be absolutely evil if a human were in the animals place. The actions are the same, but the moral implications are not? That, I find, is a major fault with the premise in the "life is sacred" argumentation, because there is always a silent "so long as its human lives" or even worse "so long as its certain human lives" that underscores those types of arguments.

 

But, even if sacred life status were granted to non-human animals, its very difficult to draw the line on where the sacred life status stops. Do we limit it to just vertebrates? Is anti-bacterial soap genocide? Is it evil to moe the lawn? Absurdity, quite clearly. (However, I think a special mention of Jainist religion should be made - the Jainists considered all life sacred, and would go to great lengths to avoid killing plants and insects. Some were even so devout to survive on nothing but dead bark that had fallen from trees. That is at least non-preferencial egalitarian application of the sacred-life point of view, but very few people would find that reasonable, or even necessary.)

 

To an extent, the type of selective right-to-life on the grounds that life is sacred by pro-life is just as philosophically indefensible as the selective right-to-life on the grounds that unborn people really arent people by pro-choice. It isnt often you hear that the positions of pro-choice and pro-life are philosophically indistinguishable and methodologically equivalent, but thats the way I feel if the two views are to be compared completely impartially and fairly at all.

 

I've glossed over some of the other defenses of sacred life such as religous implications, and the belief that human lifes are by virtue more useful and worth living than animal lives, but I dont think its necessary to go into that.

 

 

Its probably obvious that I take philosophy very seriously, especially in the area of ethics. Although people who know me accuse me seeing the world through rose-colored glasses and smiling too much (I am a very pleasant person to meet in real life, I guarantee it), sometimes the way I see things in others rubs off as very cynical, such as what I'm about to say now: I just dont think many people really ask themselves "why do I feel this way" - lots of people take moral presusppositions for granted, so much so that although I reject moral relativism as nonsense, I would frankly be surprised if anyone actually understands what make certain actions like lying, cheating, stealing or almost anything morally wrong. I consider knowledge to be both being aware of something and understanding it, in that way I really doubt people are very knowledgable about ethics (they might be aware something is morally wrong, but not know why).

 

On that note, a quick personal anecdote:

For a long time, I was strongly pro-life for having been raised in a Southern Baptist household. After studying philosophy, I rather began to question whether the opinion of religion (or more correctly, what I percieved the opinion of religion to be) really had as much weight as I had assumed - after all, what reason does God declare life sacred? He certainly should have a good reason, because it isnt obvious why his commands have the force of absolute moral obligation when my commands dont. Among other things like the euthyphro dilemma and considerations of Divine Command Theories of morality, I eventually and disappointedly concluded that the religious arguments against abortion are profoundly empty.

 

Flash forward to now: I catch myself wondering how I ever made it through life without really having thought about anything, I see now that I am very happy for discovering philosophy. Since I first developed my interest in it, I've tried so hard for myself to put together a coherent, philosophically genuine, and honest system of ethic. I compare myself to now to how I was before - I see that my point of view on abortion was that I found it to be morally offensive without rational reason, analogously no more of a mental decision between whether I prefer blue or red.

 

Today, I still find abortion offensive, I would absolutely never consider having an abortion myself, but that a personal choice of mine. However from an ethical point of view, I dont consider abortion unethical - just unfortunate. Although it doesnt affect my sense of ethics, I do have a lot of compassion for people and feel a sense of irrational grief when thinking about it.

 

When it comes to really considering how to justify abortion, I start at the most fundamental level and ask "On what basis is abortion unethical?" The usual answer is that it destroys a human life. "Why is it wrong to destroy a human life?"

 

I've seen all kinds of answers to that question, and many of them I would consider to be less than what would garner a passing grade in a philosophy 101 environment. However, in my experience, I find that certain qualities are morally relevant and can define moral worth: interests (or sometimes called preferences) and suffering.

 

There a few general rules to note first:

* Suffering (minimally amounting to feeling satisfaction or displeasure) comes first - this is a prequisite to having any interests in the first place.

* All interests should be considered equally - it isnt rational to deem an interest as worth less than another because the interest holder is a woman or a non-human animal

* As long as interests are reasonable, satisfying them is morally appropriate - dissatifying them is morally inappropriate

* Appropriateness of action exists, of course, on a continuum, it isnt black and white

 

That isnt an exhaustive list of things I can think of, but for the most part those general rules above is relatively non-remarkable, philosophically sound, and most people even find them to be reasonable.

 

You ask "why you think it is morally OK to kill someone who has not been born yet". The reason is because the a person yet to be born will not suffer, and has no interests - by what is outlined above, a woman who obtains an abortion is acting in a morally acceptable manner, her actions are not morally harmful.

 

A lot of people want to know if I let this reasoning translate into rights (the word "rights" means to me "a condition that others are morally obligated to respect"). Basically, I would say yes, and so conclude that the unborn person has few rights than the mother.

 

Believe me, what I think about ethics and morality isnt something that was decided on a whim. I am one of the most moralistic people I know (if somewhat a unique one), and it took a lot of work.

 

Do you think that the point at which the pregnancy is interrupted is of any consequence? Does the desires of the mother trump the life of the baby right up to the point of delivery?

To the first question: There are always consequences, sometimes women even regret having an abortion. However, if the termination of pregancy is at the consent of the mother, then no, there arent any moral consequences.

 

To the second question: Yes, with practical considerations. At the point of delivery, it is impossible to terminate a pregancy, so that particular desire of a mother is impossible to consider.

 

Other practical considerations is that the unborn person, as it nears coming to term, begins to develop certain mental characteristics, which include among other things a capacity to suffer. However, I've been asked whether I would consider abortion permissible in cases that near almost a full term so long as anesthetic were used - I'm not sure how to answer this. There are certain imaginable circumstances, such as the case of a person being born so severely disabled that they would suffer for short time before eventually dying, but for the most part the capacity to suffer is a very good indication that the life of the unborn person is morally relevant.

[syntax252]

There a few general rules to note first:

* Suffering (minimally amounting to feeling satisfaction or displeasure) comes first - this is a prequisite to having any interests in the first place.

* All interests should be considered equally - it isnt rational to deem an interest as worth less than another because the interest holder is a woman or a non-human animal

* As long as interests are reasonable' date=' satisfying them is morally appropriate - dissatifying them is morally inappropriate

* Appropriateness of action exists, of course, on a continuum, it isnt black and white[/quote']

 

Since the newborn baby has no more interests that the unborn baby, would it then be morally appropriate to kill a newborn baby, if, for example, the mother didn't want to feed and care for it and there was no one else who did?

 

And would it be morally appropriate for society as a whole to refuse to care for a newborn baby if the mother would not?

[Aardvark]

How do we know that a cat avoiding pain is acting consciously? I would strongly argue that avoiding pain is a deep rooted instinct that the cat unconsciously acts upon. It still all depends upon a clear defintion of consciousness or self awareness' date=' which i do not believe we are anywhere near producing.

/QUOTE']

 

A cat is a mammal. Humans are mammals. This is not an analogy but an identity - in the sense that we belong in the same group. Therefore we share certain features in common. We are mammals because . . . .

 

The fact that we are both mammals is not relevant. We share some features, but not others. There is no reason to assume that consciouness is one of those features.

 

 

Consequently I believe I share with a cat the deeply rooted instinct to avoid INJURY. When there is damage to the body automatic processors do their stuff. But if the damage is severe enough then a message is sent to the non-instinctive part of the body (consciousness) to say damage - work in progress - take care . Consciousness' date=' being non-instinctive and therefore [b']not automatic[/b] has the task of how to respond to the message. This is a task that consciousness is repeatedly engaged in. It's no coincidence that we are very much more alert to deviations from the norm than we are to the norm itself. Consciousness deals with novelty.

 

So I think it easier to get a handle on consciousness if we can agree about what it does rather than what it is. This would lead to questions like "what sort of activities are dependent on consciousness?".

 

Obviously, we share a deeply rooted instinct to avoid injury, every animal species does. As all animals react to pain the argument that the cats reacting to pain is the result of consciousness is false unless you are prepared to concede that all creatures are conscious. The idea that snails or earthworms are conscious is foolish to me so therefore you argument is foolish.

 

You argue that reacting to avoid pain and injury is dependent on conciousness, using this behaviour as a test of consciousness. As i have clearly demonstrated, your entire argument is false. Perhaps you have another behaviour you could highlight as being the result of consciousness?

[Aardvark]

If no animals apart from humans have any consciousness (which may be true) how would you explain this using evolutionary theory.

 

Lots of species develop characteristics that no other species does. species evolve to fit different niches.

 

It seems you don't understand the principles of evolution?

[syntax252]

Well, I will say that I have seen instances where animals appear to have learned from the mistakes of others (making them more concious than many humans).

 

When I was a kid, we lived on a farm, and this being back in the 40s, we slaughtered our own meat.

 

When it came time to butcher a pig, my father would put some feed into the trough that the pigs fed from, and when they began to feed, he would shoot the one we wanted to butcher in the head with a rifle. The other pigs would run off into a far corner of the pig lot, and would not return to the feeding trouth as long as one of us was nearby.

 

I noticed this, even as a child, and since one of my chores was to feed the pigs, I conducted a little experiment. I would put the feed into the trough and when the pigs started to eat, I would point a stick at one of them. Instantly, they would retreat from the feed trough. This little lesson stuck in their heads for about a week. After than, they paid no attention to me.

 

I am not at all convinced that animals--at least some animals--are not aware of themselves.

 

How does the scientific community establish whether or not an animal is self aware? What is the criteria for establishing that condition?

[Aardvark]

Well, I will say that I have seen instances where animals appear to have learned from the mistakes of others (making them more concious than many humans).

 

Interesting, but learned behaviour does not necessarilly denote consciousness.

 

At the moment is does not appear that anyone is able to give a rigorous definition of consciousness or self awareness.

[syntax252]

Interesting' date=' but learned behaviour does not necessarilly denote consciousness.

 

At the moment is does not appear that anyone is able to give a rigorous definition of consciousness or self awareness.[/quote']

 

I would agree that learned behaviour does not necessarily indicate conciousness, but when the behaviour is the result of one lesson and when the lesson was learned by observation, rather than by individual experience, well..........

 

It makes me wonder if we should have been shooting the pig in the first place.

[Mart]

Yeah' date=' I rephrased my reply to remove rudeness. Sorry about that. I was in a hurry to invoke 'Link to Godwins Law' !

 

I actually don't have an opinon either way on abortion, I just didn't like the comparison with shooting a person in the head.

Thanks a lot for the link. It's amusing.

You don't like the comparison? Well the fetus has to be killed somehow in an abortion. The method is not the issue for me as long as it's painless. My focus in such a situation is with the reasons given for aborting. Examine the reasons given when you are concerned enough about abortion.

[Aardvark]

I would agree that learned behaviour does not necessarily indicate conciousness' date=' but when the behaviour is the result of one lesson and when the lesson was learned by observation, rather than by individual experience, well..........

 

It does raise interesting ideas about levels of awareness, self awareness and consciousness. But not many answers. I think basing rights on such a nebulous concept as consciousness is dubious.

 

It makes me wonder if we should have been shooting the pig in the first place.

 

The taste of bacon is one of the major factors in my disregarding evidence of intelligence as denoting rights.

[Mart]

Lots of species develop characteristics that no other species does. species evolve to fit different niches.

It seems you don't understand the principles of evolution?

I'm not an expert on evolution..

Correct me if you think I've got it wrong but don't characteristics have to be present in order for them to be developed. Dawkins (for example - I said I wasn't an expert ) in The Blind Watchmaker explains how he believes the eye might have evolved. His starting point was the characteristic of photo sensitivity which he claims is universal.

What are the principles of evolution? How many are there? If you can help me I'd appreciate a reply.

[syntax252]

I would agree that learned behaviour does not necessarily indicate conciousness' date=' but when the behaviour is the result of one lesson and when the lesson was learned by observation, rather than by individual experience, well.......... [/quote']

 

It does raise interesting ideas about levels of awareness, self awareness and consciousness. But not many answers. I think basing rights on such a nebulous concept as consciousness is dubious.

 

It makes me wonder if we should have been shooting the pig in the first place.

 

The taste of bacon is one of the major factors in my disregarding evidence of intelligence as denoting rights.

 

Indeed!

[In My Memory]

Syntax,

 

Since the newborn baby has no more interests that the unborn baby' date=' would it then be morally appropriate to kill a newborn baby, if, for example, the mother didn't want to feed and care for it and there was no one else who did?

 

And would it be morally appropriate for society as a whole to refuse to care for a newborn baby if the mother would not?[/quote']

You oversimplify. Of the course we should care for a newborn baby, if they didnt the baby would suffer terribly - and that is unethical. And no, it would not appropriate for society to refuse care for the newborn baby.

 

I've noticed a pattern in your posts: In each example of moral contradiction you've come up with, you either assume interests are irrelevant so long as there is no suffering (see the shooting in the back example), the suffering is irrelevant so long as there are no interests (see the post I've quoted), or some variation thereof that doesnt accurately reflect my system of ethics at all. Each time you bring up an example, try to imagine what I might think of it. Put yourself in my mind, and try to weigh both the interests and suffering.

 

Oh, and I have a question: what is your opinion on abortion?

[syntax252]

Syntax' date='

 

 

You oversimplify. Of the course we should care for a newborn baby, if they didnt the baby would suffer terribly - and that is unethical. And no, it would not appropriate for society to refuse care for the newborn baby.

 

I've noticed a pattern in your posts: In each example of moral contradiction you've come up with, you either assume interests are irrelevant so long as there is no suffering (see the shooting in the back example), the suffering is irrelevant so long as there are no interests (see the post I've quoted), or some variation thereof that doesnt accurately reflect my system of ethics at all. Each time you bring up an example, try to imagine what I might think of it. Put yourself in my mind, and try to weigh [i']both[/i] the interests and suffering.

 

Oh, and I have a question: what is your opinion on abortion?

 

Well then since a newborn baby would suffer if we killed it after it was born, how can you think that it would not suffer before it was born? What happen during that passage through the birth cannal that suddenly makes it sensitive to pain?

 

You were talking about pain when you used the term "suffer?"

 

My opinion on abortion is that it is the taking of a human life and as such is sometimes justifiable, and sometimes not. I could not think of myself as moral if I killed someone because not killing him was inconvienent, but I could kill someone if there was the question of safety to me or to others, or if I was a soldier at war, or if he had committed a crime that called for the death penalty in the society in which I lived.

 

There may be other cases where I could kill someone, but I think you understand.

[invisiblebrain]

how many animal species are self aware and if they say they are then how the hell did they find that out