Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by vivify
So then from the third trimester on, barring physical complications, rape, etc., are you against aborting the child?

Yeah, I think you need some very good reasons late in a pregnancy.

Originally posted by vivify
sperm is a not a human life. It's just a life that comes from a human. Big difference. A zygote isn't a "potential" human life, it already is one. Thus, wacking off isn't the robbing of a human life; abortion is.

at what exact point is it officially a human life in your opinion?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
at what exact point is it officially a human life in your opinion?

I don't know what the exact point is. But by the time it's a zygote, it's definitely a human life.

Originally posted by vivify
I don't know what the exact point is. But by the time it's a zygote, it's definitely a human life.

at what point does it officially become a zygote. is it an instant transition from non-zygote to zygote? is it like a digital or analogue change? i mean we need to be sure dont we, we dont want to accidentally kill a human life. or does it not matter when we get down to that level?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
at what point does it officially become a zygote. is it an instant transition from non-zygote to zygote? is it like a digital or analogue change? i mean we need to be sure dont we, we dont want to accidentally kill a human life. or does it not matter when we get down to that level?

This doesn't matter, because by the time most women can confirm they are pregnant, it's already a human life.

This question is only an issue in rape cases, (or failed contraceptions) when a woman expects she may have gotten pregnant very soon after the act; but even then, it doesn't matter, because it's the mother's choice whether to abort or not, since rape victims (or failed contraceptions) shouldn't be forced to keep it.

So in short...your question doesn't matter.

Originally posted by vivify
This doesn't matter, because by the time most women can confirm they are pregnant, it's already a human life.

This question is only an issue in rape cases, (or failed contraceptions) when a woman expects she may have gotten pregnant very soon after the act; but even then, it doesn't matter, because it's the mother's choice whether to abort or not, since ...[text shortened]... aceptions) shouldn't be forced to keep it.

So in short...your question doesn't matter.

Why does it matter whether it is a human life? There are much clearer moral connections to personhood, because the capacities that constitute personhood are the very ones the allow us those parts of our life that we're disposed to value intrinsically (e.g., freedom from suffering, autonomy, etc.). But not all persons are human beings, and not all human beings are persons. So it is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a person that an entity is a human being. Without an argument the justifies your contention that being a human organism is sufficient for moral status, why should your position be considered anything other than question-begging stipulation? Can't you do better? You'd think such an important topic deserves it.

Originally posted by vivify
This doesn't matter, because by the time most women can confirm they are pregnant, it's already a human life.

This question is only an issue in rape cases, (or failed contraceptions) when a woman expects she may have gotten pregnant very soon after the act; but even then, it doesn't matter, because it's the mother's choice whether to abort or not, since ...[text shortened]... aceptions) shouldn't be forced to keep it.

So in short...your question doesn't matter.

how do you feel about the morning after pill? it can be taken within 72 hours of sex. is that killing a human?

Originally posted by bbarr
Why does it matter whether it is a human life?

Because it's a human. Period. Without the respect for this one, singular trait, there's no reason for morals at all. It's the lack of respect for the idea of being human that you're displaying now, that lead to things like slavery. Make an argument as to why simply being human doesn't matter, and there you go: justification for enslaving blacks.

The fact that it's a human life is all that needed to give it moral consideration.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
how do you feel about the morning after pill? it can be taken within 72 hours of sex. is that killing a human?

If the sperm and egg have fused, than yes. That doesn't mean it should be illeegal, but, the decision to kill a human life is still being made.

Originally posted by vivify
Because it's a human. Period. Without the respect for this one, singular trait, there's no reason for morals at all. It's the lack of respect for the idea of being human that you're displaying now, that lead to things like slavery. Make an argument as to why simply being human doesn't matter, and there you go: justification for enslaving blacks.

The fact that it's a human life is all that needed to give it moral consideration.

No, you are confused. If we came across a non-human species with similar psychological capacities (consciousness, rationality, capacity for suffering, etc.), they would obviously have the same moral status as human beings. So it can't be that moral status is simply a function of being a human. The reasons why we would treat non-human persons and human persons similarly is that it's the personhood that does the moral work. My account can explain this. Your account cannot.

Further, when one investigates the conditions under which human beings find their lives worth living, or the moral principles that human beings tend to agree are of fundamental importance, they all relate to considerations of harm, freedom, flourishing, etc. My account can explain this, because these things follow from the capacities that constitute personhood. Your account cannot.

Consider your slavery example: On my account, slavery is wrong because slaves are persons, not merely because they are human beings. It is just as wrong to enslave black folk as it would be to enslave Vulcans. Why? Because both groups are persons. You don't have an account of why it would be wrong to enslave Vulcans, because you tie moral status too closely to membership in the human species.

You see? You don't have much of an account at all. Sad, really.

Originally posted by vivify
If the sperm and egg have fused, than yes. That doesn't mean it should be illeegal, but, the decision to kill a human life is still being made.

do you think the morning after pill is morally wrong?

Originally posted by vivify
Because it's a human. Period. Without the respect for this one, singular trait, there's no reason for morals at all. It's the lack of respect for the idea of being human that you're displaying now, that lead to things like slavery. Make an argument as to why simply being human doesn't matter, and there you go: justification for enslaving blacks.

The fact that it's a human life is all that needed to give it moral consideration.

Oh, come on. You're being a total drama queen. The idea that membership in the species Homo sapiens sapiens is neither necessary nor sufficient for moral consideration does not in any way provide "justification for enslaving blacks". Bbarr just got done telling you that he thinks there are other criteria related to the subject of personhood; and the blacks you are talking about would obviously qualify as persons under such criteria.

Bbarr is right: membership in our species is neither necessary nor sufficient for moral consideration. The ironic thing is that *your view* is actually the one that putatively justifies discrimination. Your view is just some vicious variant of speciesism. Hey, just make some argument that there's no reason for morals at all with respect to some entity unless that entity just happens to be a member of one particular species; just arbitrarily hinge all morals on this one purely descriptive fact; and there you go: justification for affording no moral consideration to any other species.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
how do you feel about the morning after pill? it can be taken within 72 hours of sex. is that killing a human?

I think this question is like asking... are you killing a senior citizen if you kill a 20 something person. The journey through life... infancy, adolescence, adulthood, senior years, begins at conception, when the sperm meets the egg.

The point at which life begins is really not a hard concept, we muddy it up when we use different words to describe what is taking place.

The politics of abortion is a separate issue in my opinion from 'what is life'. People get very upset when any form of abortion is permitted, others when any form is prohibited. The fact is the very small percentage of abortions that are performed for rape, incest, or danger of the mother are linked with abortions that are performed for every other reason. It is an all or nothing proposition.

Abortion for the purpose of convenience should not be permitted, some of the reasons that one may give for this reason may include;

1. I am not ready to have a baby
2. I cannot afford a child
3. A baby would interfere with school, work, etc.

I think we get the point.

We need to uncouple abortions for the reasons of convenience from abortions performed for rape, incest and danger to the mother and put them in two different categories. Abortions for the purpose of convenience (or inconvenience) should not be permitted. In the US, over 50 million abortions have been performed since 1973. When you look at these numbers it is a bit sobering to think that this much life has been extinguished, and this is the US. For worldwide numbers, have a look here... http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/worldwide_abortion_statistics/

I think for an advanced society as we like to think of ourselves as, to continue having the debate of what is life and when does it begin... to be pointless, especially for the many here that claim to be scientists. It is at conception!

Originally posted by kd2acz
I think this question is like asking... are you killing a senior citizen if you kill a 20 something person. The journey through life... infancy, adolescence, adulthood, senior years, begins at conception, when the sperm meets the egg.

The point at which life begins is really not a hard concept, we muddy it up when we use different words to describe what ...[text shortened]... be pointless, especially for the many here that claim to be scientists. It is at conception!

OK, so what is your argument for the claim that abortions for the sake of convenience should not be permitted? You haven't given any reasons in support of this claim.

Originally posted by bbarr
OK, so what is your argument for the claim that abortions for the sake of convenience should not be permitted? You haven't given any reasons in support of this claim.

Why does there need to be an argument? I think I have given examples of some of the reasons one gives for abortions that I categorized as convenience. Do you think anybody that has one of these reasons should terminate if they so choose? Should a life that had nothing to do with the conception pay with its own life, for the convenience of the mother? Is this your position?