Abortion III: Human Right?

[Caninope]

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.

That's a pretty big if that you've not substantiated.

[Caninope]

Duties exist regardless of one's recognition of them.

No, they don't.

Yes, they do.

[Acmetopia]

Many people think it should be legal in cases of rape or incest, but for me that seems to be reaching a little far. Abortion should only be legal if it is caused by a rapist. With incest, it is entirely their fault, they could have just said no, so they should have to live with that disturbing memento of a moment of bad choice.

Also, My first forum post!!! YAY!

[Neutraligon]

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

...

I really don't care why philosophers reject moral noncognitivism. Their opinion is their own, and I disagree with it. Morals are by definition a value judgement, and values are opinions. Thus morals are opinions and opinions are subjective.

Correct, she has no moral duty to the fetus within her. If she decides to keep the fetus only then does any duty to it exist, and only for as long as she continues to agree to keep it.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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 you too have made a claim you must support.

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

"She shouldn't be forced,"is a negative claim, and therefore doesn't need evidence. Your claim, however, is positive.

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.

Faulty premise, no support. Claim dismissed.

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).

Ignores a woman's rights to her bodies, unjustified. Claim dismissed.

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.

Moral facts don't exist, human rights do. Claim dismissed.

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.

That's a pretty big if that you've not substantiated.

It's substantiated by cultural differences throughout history. If morals were objective then everybody would be subject to identical morals like how they're subject to the laws of physics.

[Neutraligon]

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.

That's a pretty big if that you've not substantiated.

I was responding to your premise that morals are subjective.

[Dyakovo]

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?

That is correct.

[Mavorpen]

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.

Just like being a Nazi. And that's what I see calling something that isn't actually murder murder as. You (general "you," here) just shouting "NAZI!" over and over because you don't have an actual argument. Calling something murder makes it that much harder to actually have a legitimate argument because it just turns into childish namecalling. Whereas saying "I think abortion is morally wrong" opens up and promotes actual discussion.

[Caninope]

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


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


...

I really don't care why philosophers reject moral noncognitivism. Their opinion is their own, and I disagree with it. Morals are by definition a value judgement, and values are opinions. Thus morals are opinions and opinions are subjective.

You should care, because moral noncognitivism has some pretty serious flaws.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I really don't care why philosophers reject moral noncognitivism. Their opinion is their own, and I disagree with it. Morals are by definition a value judgement, and values are opinions. Thus morals are opinions and opinions are subjective.

You should care, because moral noncognitivism has some pretty serious flaws.

Like?

[Neutraligon]

I really don't care why philosophers reject moral noncognitivism. Their opinion is their own, and I disagree with it. Morals are by definition a value judgement, and values are opinions. Thus morals are opinions and opinions are subjective.

You should care, because moral noncognitivism has some pretty serious flaws.

Again, morals are value judgements, and value judgements are opinion. This makes morals subjective. As subjective and objective are opposites, they cannot be objective.

[Caninope]

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

"She shouldn't be forced,"is a negative claim, and therefore doesn't need evidence. Your claim, however, is positive.

Not that's just wrong. As I've pointed out before, negative claims need support (and several negatives have been famously proven, including the inability to rationalize pi).

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.

Faulty premise, no support. Claim dismissed.

No, you called all my support "philosophical bullshit" without reading it.

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).

Ignores a woman's rights to her bodies, unjustified. Claim dismissed.

Why does a woman have a right to her body? That's certainly a positive claim.

It's substantiated by cultural differences throughout history. If morals were objective then everybody would be subject to identical morals like how they're subject to the laws of physics.

You've not proven that they're not subject to identical morals, only that our perceptions of these morals have changed.

[Dyakovo]

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.

That's a pretty big if that you've not substantiated.

The substantiation of the claim that morals are subjective has been seen right here in this thread. If morals were objective, we wouldn't be arguing about whether of not there exists a moral duty for women to carry a pregnancy to term.

[Caninope]

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

That is correct.

Do you hold that killing an adult male who has harmed you in no way is wrong? If yes, do you hold that killing an infant is wrong? If yes, do you hold that refusing to give your blood in a blood transfusion that would save someone's life is wrong?

If yes to all three questions, why isn't abortion wrong?

[Caninope]

That's a pretty big if that you've not substantiated.

The substantiation of the claim that morals are subjective has been seen right here in this thread. If morals were objective, we wouldn't be arguing about whether of not there exists a moral duty for women to carry a pregnancy to term.

If the laws of physics were objective, we wouldn't be arguing about how quantum field theory works.

This logic goes both ways.

[Shnercropolis]

That's a pretty big if that you've not substantiated.

The substantiation of the claim that morals are subjective has been seen right here in this thread. If morals were objective, we wouldn't be arguing about whether of not there exists a moral duty for women to carry a pregnancy to term.

People argue about objective truths all the time. It's commonly called scientific debate, and usually it happens when the objective truth is not known.

[Caninope]

You should care, because moral noncognitivism has some pretty serious flaws.

Again, morals are value judgements, and value judgements are opinion. This makes morals subjective. As subjective and objective are opposites, they cannot be objective.

Why are morals just value judgements? This is what you need to substantiate.

[Neutraligon]

That is correct.

Do you hold that killing an adult male who has harmed you in no way is wrong? If yes, do you hold that killing an infant is wrong? If yes, do you hold that refusing to give your blood in a blood transfusion that would save someone's life is wrong?

If yes to all three questions, why isn't abortion wrong?

Depends, depends (you did not mention if the child was a threat to my life), no.
But then that is still my opinion.

[Dyakovo]

That is correct.

Do you hold that killing an adult male who has harmed you in no way is wrong? If yes, do you hold that killing an infant is wrong? If yes, do you hold that refusing to give your blood in a blood transfusion that would save someone's life is wrong?

If yes to all three questions, why isn't abortion wrong?

No.
Not inherently, no.
No, it is not.

[Shnercropolis]

Do you hold that killing an adult male who has harmed you in no way is wrong? If yes, do you hold that killing an infant is wrong? If yes, do you hold that refusing to give your blood in a blood transfusion that would save someone's life is wrong?

If yes to all three questions, why isn't abortion wrong?

No.
Not inherently, no.
No, it is not.

would you do any of those things, given a chance?

[Neutraligon]

Again, morals are value judgements, and value judgements are opinion. This makes morals subjective. As subjective and objective are opposites, they cannot be objective.

Why are morals just value judgements? This is what you need to substantiate.

Morals are a claim that something is important, like say the claim that not killing is a moral thing means the person is placing value on life. Other people do not place similar values on life. Similarly a person who wants separation on church and state places value on not having their religion dictated by their government. Value judgements are basically saying these are important to me, morals are the same they are saying these particular things are important to me.

[Caninope]

Do you hold that killing an adult male who has harmed you in no way is wrong? If yes, do you hold that killing an infant is wrong? If yes, do you hold that refusing to give your blood in a blood transfusion that would save someone's life is wrong?

If yes to all three questions, why isn't abortion wrong?

No.
Not inherently, no.
No, it is not.

So is anything ever wrong?

[Caninope]

Why are morals just value judgements? This is what you need to substantiate.

Morals are a claim that something is important,

That's a viewpoint that, as I have said, various philosophers have poked holes in for a century now.

[Neutraligon]

Morals are a claim that something is important,

That's a viewpoint that, as I have said, various philosophers have poked holes in for a century now.

Go ahead and do so then instead of actually just claiming it.

[Mavorpen]

No.
Not inherently, no.
No, it is not.

So is anything ever wrong?

Donald Trump's hair.