abortion

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
I have already answered your question in one of my post on the last page.

[b]Fact 1: We both have the knowledge in our brain telling us murder is wrong.
Fact 2: We did not aquired this knowledge using reason or objective evidence.
Fact 3: It would not make any sense trying to use reason when it comes to murder, because we ...[text shortened]... d not do so when it came to the moral question of murder on which you could base your reasoning.[/b]

Putting aside my concerns about the expression "knowledge in our brain", etc., I would suggest there are important distinctions between "murder is wrong" and "abortion is wrong".

You can perhaps ask the question "why is murder wrong?" and answer it "because human life has/persons have intrinsic value". I guess if someone challenges that you hit a brick wall. But - let's face it - it's an accepted truth.

If you ask the question "why is abortion wrong?", again the answer may be "because human life has/persons have intrinsic value". But in this case this raises other important questions, such as "what is it to be human/a person?", "does all human life have the same value?", "Have does the value of a foetus compare with the potential consequences of an unwanted pregnancy to the mother and others?", and so on.

Now you can perhaps conceive of a murder case which raises some of these questions. And if so they could and should be addressed. But in general, in the case of abortion, you simply do not hit a "brick-wall", accepted moral fact in the same way. Certainly not until you have agreed on the other questions.

Imagine I see you walk into a school and start randomly shooting children. I might ask you: "Why did you do that?" If you reply "Why shouldn't I?", I would be at a loss for words. I and practically everyone else in the world would consider you less than human, mentally ill or whatever. In fact you WOULD be less than human and mentally ill.

But what if you tell me you have had an abortion and I ask the same question? Here I would imagine we would have a productive debate based, on some level, on common ground.

Is what you call the "knowledge in your head" that abortion is wrong simply that? Or is the wrongness of abortion something you have worked out from more basic principles "in your head" (about the value of human life and so on)? If so, it may be that in some sense we are not as far apart as you may think.

Originally posted by dottewell

Is what you call the "knowledge in your head" that abortion is wrong simply that? Or is the wrongness of abortion something you have worked out from more basic principles "in your head" (about the value of human life and so on)? If so, it may be that in some sense we are not as far apart as you may think.

I just know abortion is wrong like you know that murder is wrong. I have not used reasoning, or evidence, or assumed things to come to this "knowledge".
I am saying that if you just know that murder is wrong then you can also come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong/right without using reason or evidence or assumptions.

Lets day we have not yet thought about murder so we dont yet know if it is right or wrong and we start with the abortion issue.
Then you have nothing to base your reason on and you will have to rely on the same "unexplainable thing" that gave you your conclusion that murder is wrong.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
I just know abortion is wrong like you know that murder is wrong. I have not used reasoning, or evidence, or assumed things to come to this "knowledge".
I am saying that if you just know that murder is wrong then you can also come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong/right without using reason or evidence or assumptions.

Lets day we ha ...[text shortened]... to rely on the same "unexplainable thing" that gave you your conclusion that murder is wrong.

You are a fool if you think that murder is wrong because 'you know it'
without reasoning. That's not knowledge. That's 'feeling.' Sometimes
feelings are a reflection of Truth, sometimes they are misleading.

I can know that murder is wrong because I can prove it based
on sound logical princples resting on universal axioms which are not
contradictory or problematic.

What you are hoping is that by appealing to sentiment, people might
be persuaded. That's not argument. That's propaganda. Politicians
use this sad argument to get them elected in every country (oh, look
at the children, blah blah blah).

If you have something to argue, present it. But don't make absurd
claims that murder is wrong because we 'feel' it is. It's wrong because
we can prove it is.

Nemesio

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Lets day we have not yet thought about murder so we dont yet know if it is right or wrong and we start with the abortion issue.
Then you have nothing to base your reason on and you will have to rely on the same "unexplainable thing" that gave you your conclusion that murder is wrong.

No; you will work back to the same principle - that human life/personhood has value - and be left with the same corollary questions. Because that human life/personhood has value is a fact (or axiom, as Nemesio is saying).

Originally posted by Nemesio
You are a fool if you think that murder is wrong because 'you know it'
without reasoning. That's not knowledge. That's 'feeling.' Sometimes
feelings are a reflection of Truth, sometimes they are misleading.

I can [b]know that murder is wrong because I can prove it based
on sound logical princples resting on universal axioms which are not ...[text shortened]... murder is wrong because we 'feel' it is. It's wrong because
we can prove it is.

Nemesio[/b]

No, you are a fool for trusting on an axiom. 500 years ago there was a universal axiom saying witches exist and should be burned. Have a nice day doing what universal axioms tell you, I'll trust on my empathy and conscience.

Originally posted by dottewell
Because that human life/personhood has value is a fact (or axiom, as Nemesio is saying).

Please understand that I am not saying that human life = personhood.

I am not.

And I am not saying that the statement 'personhood is valuable'
is an axiom. It is a conclusion which is logically drawn from simple
axioms about things that are worthy of being valued (not suffering,
the capacity for rationale, and the capacity for self-awareness). There
may be other reasons (and I look forward to LemonJello's forthcoming
discussion, or even Ivanhoe's if he will produce it).

Nemesio

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
No, you are a fool for trusting on an axiom. 500 years ago there was a universal axiom saying witches exist and should be burned. Have a nice day doing what universal axioms tell you, I'll trust on my empathy and conscience.

That axiom could have been and is easily proven incorrect. I am not
saying that all axioms are equal. They are not. Some are demonstrably
flawed, inconsistent, vague, incomplete, or contradictory.

You can trust on your empathy and conscience all you want, but I
assure you that many evils have been the product of a person's having
a clear conscience (just read the writings of pro-Slavery Americans).

And, furthermore, to impose your 'feelings' upon others is nothing
other than oppression. So, if you want to be an oppressor then just
come out and say it. But don't act like you are being reasonable.

You're not.

Nemesio

Originally posted by dottewell
No; you will work back to the same principle - that human life/personhood has value - and be left with the same corollary questions. Because that human life/personhood has value is a fact (or axiom, as Nemesio is saying).

Its is empathy that tells me and everyone else that murder is wrong and it is empathy that tells me and everyone else abortion is wrong.

Philosphican truth: Morality does not exist, but empathy and conscience do exist.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Please understand that I am not saying that human life = personhood.

I am not.

And I am not saying that the statement 'personhood is valuable'
is an axiom. It is a conclusion which is logically drawn from simple
axioms about things that are worthy of being valued (not suffering,
the capacity for rationale, and the capacity for self-awareness). T ...[text shortened]... to LemonJello's forthcoming
discussion, or even Ivanhoe's if he will produce it).

Nemesio

Fair enough; I did not mean "/" to mean "=". It was an attempt to sidestep another debate.

I take your point about what you consider to be axiomatic; but the argument with LOTC is about the nature of those axioms, i.e. he willl tell you that without a reason to believe them, they have no standing.

Originally posted by Nemesio
That axiom could have been and is easily proven incorrect. I am not
saying that all axioms are equal. They are not. Some are demonstrably
flawed, inconsistent, vague, incomplete, or contradictory.

Nonsense, prove to me why witches do not exist. All axioms are equaly ignorant.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Philosphican truth: Morality does not exist, but empathy and conscience do exist.[/b]

LOL!

You evidently lack the subtly to understand that this statement
IS AN AXIOM!

LMFAO!

Nemesio

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Nonsense, prove to me why witches do not exist. All axioms are equaly ignorant.

Your axiom was 'witches exist and that they should be burned
(as a result of that).'

I won't bother trying to prove something doesn't exist (even though
you didn't define it).

However, the 'should be burned' part is simple. Because it is murder.
Why is murder wrong, because it kills a person who has interests.
What is a person? See above.

Thus this 'axiom' is demonstrably contradictory with your 'feeling'
that murder is wrong. So either murder is right or burning witches is
wrong, not both.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Your axiom was 'witches exist and that they should be burned
(as a result of that).'

I won't bother trying to prove something doesn't exist (even though
you didn't define it).

However, the 'should be burned' part is simple. Because it is murder.
Why is murder wrong, because it kills a person who has interests.
What is a person? See abov ...[text shortened]... t murder is wrong. So either murder is right or burning witches is
wrong, not both.

Nemesio

I won't bother trying to prove something doesn't exist
Are you playing stupid here?
Your axiom: "the capacity for rationale, and the capacity for self-awareness is valuable". Prove that this axiom is true then...you cant, because it is based on belief. If you trust on axioms you would have been burning witches if you lived 500 years ago because it was an axiom that witches exist and should be burned.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
[b]I won't bother trying to prove something doesn't exist
Are you playing stupid here?
Your axiom: "the capacity for rationale, and the capacity for self-awareness is valuable". Prove that this axiom is true then...you cant, because it is based on belief. If you trust on axioms you would have been burning witches if you lived 500 years ago because it was an axiom that witches exist and should be burned.[/b]

You have such a limited view on what constitutes an axiom and
why it may or may not be valid, I fear that any efforts I make to
demonstrate the validity of my axiom will be a waste.

Look up axiom and demonstrate an understanding of it by using
it correctly with a counter axiom instead of 'it was an axiom that
witches exist and should be burned,' and I will play ball.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
No. I'm saying a zygote is a human person and therefore it has the accompanying rights.

Why is the zygot a human being ?
Because it has the necessary DNA and the "body" to be a human being.
Why does the zygote has rights ?
Because the zygote is a human person.
Why is the zygot a human person ?
Because it has a unique identity.

But as I have told you, i'm thinking on this.

This post is two weeks old. Are you going to make good on your claim after
I answered your question about my stance with complete candor?

I note that you have had time for twelve pages of posts in the interim.

Nemesio