Abortion III: Human Right?

[Godular]

Your argument is simply bullshit. If you think there's a duty to give birth, you do it.

Duties exist regardless of one's recognition of them.

No they do not.

[Caninope]

I'm not an expert on the philosophy of the mind or cognitive science by any means, but I thought the traditional definition of consciousness is self-awareness.

No, consciousness is just about receiving stimuli and responding to them in a way that demonstrates awareness of these stimuli. Self-awareness is being able to distinguish between the "self" and others and have a sense of self-identity.

I can understand the confusion though.

That seems like a very broad definition of consciousness, but I think it might be best not to continue down this line of argumentation, given my inexperience with professional literature on the subject.

[Caninope]

I'm pretty sure Kant is rolling in his grave so fast right now that he's effectively drilled through his casket.

Kant is a dead white male, he has no right to tell me how to live my life.

Not sure if serious.

[Caninope]

Like I said with my first post in this thread, what is legal is irrelevant. The law changes.

I know that. I just have a problem with people using the term "murder" when it's not applicable because they know there's a negative connotation towards it. It's a subtle attempt at guilt tripping.

Murder is often used as shorthand for "unjustified killing" as well as "illegal killing".

[New Werpland]

Kant is a dead white male, he has no right to tell me how to live my life.

Not sure if serious.

Sarcasm.

[Caninope]

That doesn't make it any less wrong.

So you say incorrectly.

So the morality of an action depends only on how the receiver takes the action?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So? This doesn't say shit about moral duty or anything.

You can't argue that the little human jellyfish inside her isn't using her bodily resources.

I don't need to argue that.

Yes you do. You made a positive claim; support it.

You're the one who has said that because it's her body, it's her choice.

And that's all there is to it. A woman doesn't need anyone else to decide for her, nor should she forced to have something she doesn't want.

Tell me why that "little human jellyfish" therefore means that she gets to choose. Derive the ought from the is using artificially constructed ethics.

Explain why and how she has a moral duty to raise the fetus to birth, and the consequences of not doing so.

[Mavorpen]

I know that. I just have a problem with people using the term "murder" when it's not applicable because they know there's a negative connotation towards it. It's a subtle attempt at guilt tripping.

Murder is often used as shorthand for "unjustified killing" as well as "illegal killing".

Yeah, and I'm saying the former has no place in a serious discussion.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

To use Watcheria's argument: Morals do not exist.

And if you'd read my posts, you would have seen not only a link to an article explaining the foundations of moral realism, you would have seen several defenses of moral objectivism (which, when combined with the numerous defenses over the years of moral cognitivism imply moral realism).

And they all boil down to,"It must be so."

[Neutraligon]

Your argument is simply bullshit. If you think there's a duty to give birth, you do it.

Duties exist regardless of one's recognition of them.

There is not duty to the fetus.

[Godular]

So you say incorrectly.

So the morality of an action depends only on how the receiver takes the action?

Morality is inherently subjective. Your morals are not everyone's morals.

As for my own personal stance, I gravitate towards equality and consistency and how well both are maintained. I have the right to kill in self defense, and the woman has that same right. Consistency and equality.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Duties exist regardless of one's recognition of them.

There is not duty to the fetus.

Heh, you said doo-dee.

[Caninope]

I don't need to argue that.

Yes you do. You made a positive claim; support it.

You're the one who said "Her body, her choice". I'm asking you to support that statement. I've supported my statements by positing the existence of moral fact (and posting defenses of their existence), and deriving the duties from there.

You're the one who has said that because it's her body, it's her choice.

And that's all there is to it. A woman doesn't need anyone else to decide for her, nor should she forced to have something she doesn't want.

You're missing the point. Why shouldn't she be forced? The why is very important. You gotta get to that ought.

Tell me why that "little human jellyfish" therefore means that she gets to choose. Derive the ought from the is using artificially constructed ethics.

Explain why she has a moral duty to raise the fetus to birth, and the consequences of not doing so.

I don't have to do shit, because I've already explained it, but if you want me to do it again, I will.

Premise: Moral facts exist.
Support: I have posted this already.

Derived from premise 1: Moral facts imply "ought" by their very nature, therefore one ought to act in accordance with moral facts.

Premise: Allowing a living being to live when one is able is better than killing them is a moral fact.
Support: Multiple sources (including common sense intuition and the foul consequences of the universability of the inverse as explored by Kant).

Therefore, if moral facts exist (and we have reason to think so) and not killing people when we can help it is a moral fact (and we have reason to think so), we have a duty not to kill living beings when we can help it.

[Caninope]

Murder is often used as shorthand for "unjustified killing" as well as "illegal killing".

Yeah, and I'm saying the former has no place in a serious discussion.

It completely does. The law ought to reflect the views a society has on ethics.

[Caninope]

And if you'd read my posts, you would have seen not only a link to an article explaining the foundations of moral realism, you would have seen several defenses of moral objectivism (which, when combined with the numerous defenses over the years of moral cognitivism imply moral realism).

And they all boil down to,"It must be so."

Did you even bother reading any of them?

[Caninope]

Duties exist regardless of one's recognition of them.

There is not duty to the fetus.

Why?

[Caninope]

So the morality of an action depends only on how the receiver takes the action?

Morality is inherently subjective. Your morals are not everyone's morals.

As for my own personal stance, I gravitate towards equality and consistency and how well both are maintained. I have the right to kill in self defense, and the woman has that same right. Consistency and equality.

You can posit that views and experiences on morality are inherently subjective, but this doesn't mean that objective morality doesn't exist.

[Dyakovo]

Only as long as she consents to having it within her body.

That's like saying you should have the right to murder someone if they break into your house.

Yes, you should have the right to defend yourself and your property with lethal force.

[Neutraligon]

Yes you do. You made a positive claim; support it.

You're the one who said "Her body, her choice". I'm asking you to support that statement. I've supported my statements by positing the existence of moral fact (and posting defenses of their existence), and deriving the duties from there.

And that's all there is to it. A woman doesn't need anyone else to decide for her, nor should she forced to have something she doesn't want.

You're missing the point. Why shouldn't she be forced? The why is very important. You gotta get to that ought.

Explain why she has a moral duty to raise the fetus to birth, and the consequences of not doing so.

I don't have to do shit, because I've already explained it, but if you want me to do it again, I will.

Premise: Moral facts exist.
Support: I have posted this already.

Derived from premise 1: Moral facts imply "ought" by their very nature, therefore one ought to act in accordance with moral facts.

Premise: Allowing a living being to live when one is able is better than killing them is a moral fact.
Support: Multiple sources (including common sense intuition and the foul consequences of the universability of the inverse as explored by Kant).

Therefore, if moral facts exist (and we have reason to think so) and not killing people when we can help it is a moral fact (and we have reason to think so), we have a duty not to kill living beings when we can help it.

I disagree with premise one, morals are by their very definition an opinion. Premise two does not say always, and abortion is one of the places where it does not hold. You have yet to show how she has a duty to the fetus.

[Mavorpen]

Yeah, and I'm saying the former has no place in a serious discussion.

It completely does. The law ought to reflect the views a society has on ethics.

And that can be done without lazy appeals to emotion.

[Neutraligon]

Morality is inherently subjective. Your morals are not everyone's morals.

As for my own personal stance, I gravitate towards equality and consistency and how well both are maintained. I have the right to kill in self defense, and the woman has that same right. Consistency and equality.

You can posit that views and experiences on morality are inherently subjective, but this doesn't mean that objective morality doesn't exist.

If morality is subjective then by definition it cannot be objective.

subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

[Shnercropolis]

No, being able to prevent someone from being born is not a human right.

Then again, neither is being born.

[Caninope]

I disagree with premise one, morals are by their very definition an opinion.

Did you bother reading or paying attention to the defenses I posted? Or to why moral philosophers almost all reject moral noncognitivism?

Premise two does not say always, and abortion is one of the places where it does not hold.

So someone who can keep a fetus and chooses not to is not committing a morally wrong act?

You have yet to show how she has a duty to the fetus

...

[Caninope]

It completely does. The law ought to reflect the views a society has on ethics.

And that can be done without lazy appeals to emotion.

I think using murder is fine- the problem people have with murder is not that murder is illegal, but that they see it as wrong.

[Dyakovo]

Your argument is simply bullshit. If you think there's a duty to give birth, you do it.

Duties exist regardless of one's recognition of them.

No, they don't.