Abortion

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 133
#121
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
Yes, I am Jewish. Don't worry too much about it - I'm rather thick-skinned on issues like this. I don't necessarily want people to steer clear of Nazi comparisons just because they're trying to handle me with kid gloves, but if you are going to make a comparison to Nazi Germany, I'd like it to be linked directly with my position. As I see it, recognizing that legal choices have negative consequences and working within the framework that we should minimize those consequences where possible doesn't link very well to the actions of Nazi Germany, which selected groups to dehumanize and kill largely based on: discriminatory views that went back long before them, a desire to place blame for previous failures on someone, the view that they could profit from stealing everything these populations had, and generally viewing anything that wasn't solely nationalistic as secondary to what was good for Germany. I wouldn't say there's much relation, if any, between that and my argument.
Topic's author
#122
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
I understand that it is a straw man, of course. Your moral view is completely contrary to these actions.


I accept your complaint that arbitrary has different degrees.


But it is undeniable that giving the power of morality to society is wrong if one believes in a philosophical or religiously based ethics. If a certain act, like abortion, segregation or a specific war is not clear cut morally justified that thing should never be performed. Unless there is a clear cut definition of "person/human" universal human rights lose their meaning. Therefore, one could just as easily justify the act of abortion as any other "immoral" act - one just needs to be evil enough. 

I never meant to say that you stood for allowing any of the evil acts pointed out. But there are loopholes in the system, allowing someone evil to justice their evil deeds. There are no loopholes in a clearly defined standard like DNA - because every single thing considered a person has human DNA. This ensures that equally moral rights are justified.


 I haven't argued that there are groups - and yes, I'm including the unborn in this - that should be reduced to the status of animals.
Why can we then morally justify killing an unborn? If a fetus is not a person it is an animal. Why would you differentiate between animal and human if the difference is solely name, not in their moral value? Abortion is no different from the killing of a dog, it is a decision to kill "your own" property based on a personal whim (or necessity), and it is treated as not moral or immoral - but amoral. The only difference is that an unborn is human. But if being human, as opposed to being human AND a person, grants no moral rights why even include that as a category? If a human can be killed like an animal before becoming a person, why is it not merely an animal?


In short, "human" is still the only applicable term unless a clear cut definition of personhood is made.
Topic's author
#123
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
I wouldn't say there's much relation, if any, between that and my argument.
No there is none - except the very idea that being human does not automatically grant you human rights.
#124
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
At this point, it's clear that you don't understand my position because all of your responses aren't addressing my stance.

To start, and just to clarify in general, it is undeniable that societies legislate morality. That's a given: regardless of whether that legislation is based on a given religion or philosophical view, societies have the final word in terms of what is implemented. So, while many of your arguments decry that system, it is what exists for everyone.

I accept your complaint that arbitrary has different degrees.
...I've never made this argument, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

My stance, to be clear, is that societies should make this decision based entirely on the perspective that laws should be enacted that do the least possible harm to the population as a whole. Even that may not be clear, so I'll be more straightforward: a legal system that recognizes abortions as murder, which is what one would have to do should the unborn be recognized as being due the same right as any human born into the world alive, is going to complicate the legal system in pretty extreme ways. If you want to get into those ways, we can, but I think we have to leave behind personhood as a topic, first. So, in a sense, this is a philosophical argument.

Note that this argument is entirely distinct from saying "societies should decide based on whatever they want," which is apparently how you have viewed my position up to now. Saying:

Therefore, one could just as easily justify the act of abortion as any other "immoral" act - one just needs to be evil enough. 
is clearly not taking into account my actual position because this has nothing to do with my position. If you can give me another example of a legal structure that does more harm than good and, via its repeal, could allow great evils to be perpetrated, then please provide them. 

There are no loopholes in a clearly defined standard like DNA - because every single thing considered a person has human DNA. This ensures that equally moral rights are justified.
I've already argued the problems with the standard of DNA. Please respond to those because, while they may not be loopholes, they are pretty glaring problems that clearly engender crises if this is the standard you apply.

Why can we then morally justify killing an unborn? If a fetus is not a person it is an animal. Why would you differentiate between animal and human if the difference is solely name, not in their moral value? Abortion is no different from the killing of a dog, it is a decision to kill "your own" property based on a personal whim (or necessity), and it is treated as not moral or immoral - but amoral. The only difference is that an unborn is human. But if being human, as opposed to being human AND a person, grants no moral rights why even include that as a category? If a human can be killed like an animal before becoming a person, why is it not merely an animal?
I'm not morally justifying it. I'm legally justifying it. And that distinction matters because this notion that we are simply killing the unborn because we view them as lesser is problematic. The argument is simple: there are many circumstances where the rights of two or more humans are in conflict, and the law needs to establish whose are paramount. Determining that is always going to be difficult, and I'm not dismissing the moral implications of any choice, but this is not personal whim. Again, if you want to get into why I'm legally supporting abortion on the basis that not having it does more harm than good, then we can get into that, but you still seem stuck on personhood. The subject of personhood is not pertinent to my stance, so you'll either have to wrap it up and move on, or you'll have to tell me why it must be a part of a stance that you don't yet know.

I wouldn't say there's much relation, if any, between that and my argument.
No there is none - except the very idea that being human does not automatically grant you human rights.
I don't see how that relates the two stances in any way, especially since I ascribe those rights via a different philosophical perspective. If you want to keep relating my point to other systems, we can cover that, but I'm unclear on how my system and Nazi Germany's are similar in even this regard.
Topic's author
#125
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
I'm not morally justifying it. I'm legally justifying it.
Ok, but it is already legal. You are not making an argument "x is legal because of laws y and z" - but you are making the argument "law x is not morally unjust because y and z"



it is undeniable that societies legislate morality.
The important thing to note here is the word legislate. The word means: Make or enact laws. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/legislate]. I am not denying the fact that any society can choose what to see as immoral. But when it comes to ethics, the principles on which morality is deducted, they are clearly not under the power of society. Yes, a society can choose which ethical principles to abide by, but they cannot directly contradict those principles. Or rather, they could, but that would be considered unethical. Going back to the Nazi's (sorry - I know you completely disagree with them), they obviously upheld standard morality and ethics. But they contradicted those ethics by viewing certain groups of people as not worthy of moral value. If one wants to condemn nazi Germany, one must believe in objective ethics. We do not call their actions "harmful for society as a whole", we call them immoral and unethical - despite the fact that it was seen as acceptable by those that knew about it. If we are simply discussing the legal problems with prohibiting abortion then that is fine, but I expected us to talk about ethics. If we do the former then your view is certainly a good one, but if we do the latter I would argue that calling abortion "ethical" while calling the murder of 6-year-olds "unethical" is inconsistent and, in a way, contradictory. That is, unless we find an ethical system that allows that. Again, only two ethical systems can allow abortion:
  1. Personhood grants moral value - and it happens after birth
  2. Moral value is calculated by analyzing the individual's traits - for example age, genes or development.
My point is that any of these create other problems. Obviously, the problems would not be "legal", but ethical.




this notion that we are simply killing the unborn because we view them as lesser is problematic. 
A basic principle of ethics is that moral laws should be designed with a devil in mind. Our moral laws should not contain any loopholes that can be exploited, neither by an individual or society as a whole. Therefore, when making moral laws, we must assume that people have the worst intentions at heart. We must assume that people want to kill each other - so that we do not make it possible to kill and then say: "I am smart and I found this loophole, so my action was just". This means that we must take as a given that people want to kill Jews, Christians, lesbians, children, old people, fetuses, and every other group. If we grant moral value based on "what's most beneficial for society" then that can be subjective, as there are no ways to predict the future harm/benefits of each action. Stalin might have thought that his actions were beneficial in the long run, so how would you condemn him? Your argument of course was that we MUST grant moral value before birth. First of all, I think that as I am sure you would condemn the killing of a 16-year-old, even if society considered it "least harmful". Secondly, I doubt that one could even claim that killing babies is immoral when one has already deemed the killing of a fetus moral. 


laws should be enacted that do the least possible harm to the population as a whole.
 Yes, the government has a duty to serve the country, but they have no obligation to put their "best solution" onto morality rather than applying ethics. My view is that society should prioritize justice and ethical treatment of the individual rather than focusing on appeasing the population. That's called human rights:

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. [https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]

Since you have not defined "person", I demand that we use the word "human" instead. Or you can provide a sufficient definition of personhood.
Topic's author
#126
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
 I don't necessarily want people to steer clear of Nazi comparisons just because they're trying to handle me with kid gloves
What an attitude. RESPECT!

I would never get into this specific example if I knew that you were a jew, but now I kinda have to.



I'm unclear on how my system and Nazi Germany's are similar in even this regard.
  1. Saying that society can strip a certain group of humans of moral value since they are the ones granting moral value
  2. Justifying said action by claiming that the group is not necessarily persons, but just living organisms
    1. You claimed that you did not put the unborn as just animals, please explain why you can kill something that is not an animal.
  3. Saying that the government should put the "most beneficial for society" option above the "fairest to each individual" option
    1. I would like you to dispute this claim by proving why your view doesn't result in such a state
The philosophy is different, but the ethical implications are the same. 



I'm not dismissing the moral implications of any choice, but this is not personal whim
It's a personal whim to let an individual woman kill her offspring if she sees fit. That's like saying: "yes, parents can choose to beat their children if they think it is best". 



I don't see how that relates the two stances in any way.
Summary: Saying that society can override human rights - by creating an extra category of non-person humans - who can justly be killed if one deems it beneficial.
Topic's author
#127
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
I'm not morally justifying it. I'm legally justifying it.
Ok, but it is already legal. You are not making an argument "x is legal because of laws y and z" - but you are making the argument "law x is not morally unjust because y and z"



it is undeniable that societies legislate morality.
The important thing to note here is the word legislate. The word means: Make or enact laws. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/legislate]. I am not denying the fact that any society could choose arbitrarily what laws to pass. But when it comes to ethics, the principles on which morality is deducted, they are clearly not under the power of society. Yes, a society can choose which ethical principles to abide by, but they cannot directly contradict those principles. Or rather, they could, but that would be considered unethical. A Christian nation could not claim to abide by the ten commandments and at the same time persecute Jews - that is objectively unethical by their standard.

Going back to the Nazi's (sorry - I know you completely disagree with them), they obviously upheld standard morality and ethics. But they contradicted those ethics by viewing certain groups of people as not worthy of moral value. We call those actions immoral and unethical - despite the fact that it was seen as acceptable by those that knew about it. If one wants to condemn nazi Germany, one must believe those objective ethics are superior to societal opinion. If ethical principles can condemn societies like Nazi Germany, your view that "society" is the deciding factor is inaccurate: because ETHICS would be the deciding factor.

If we are simply discussing the legal problems with prohibiting abortion then that is fine, but I expected us to talk about ethics. If we do the former then your view is certainly a good one, but if we do the latter I would argue that calling abortion "ethical" while calling the murder of 6-year-olds "unethical" is inconsistent and, in a way, contradictory. That is unless we find an ethical system that allows that. Again, only two ethical systems can allow abortion:
  1. Personhood grants moral value - and it happens after birth
  2. Moral value is calculated by analyzing the individual's traits - for example age, genes or development.
My point is that any of these create other problems. Obviously, the problems would not be "legal", but ethical.




this notion that we are simply killing the unborn because we view them as lesser is problematic. 
A basic principle of ethics is that moral laws should be designed with a devil in mind. Our moral laws should not contain any loopholes that can be exploited, neither by an individual or society as a whole. Therefore, when making moral laws, we must assume that people have the worst intentions at heart. We must assume that people want to kill each other - so that we do not make it possible to kill and then say: "I am smart and I found this loophole, so my action was just". This means that we must take as a given that people want to kill Jews, Christians, lesbians, children, old people, fetuses, and every other group. If we grant moral value based on "what's most beneficial for society" then that can be subjective, as there are no ways to predict the future harm/benefits of each action. Stalin might have thought that his actions were beneficial in the long run, so how would you condemn him? Your argument of course was that we MUST grant moral value before birth. First of all, I think that as I am sure you would condemn the killing of a 16-year-old, even if society considered it "least harmful". Secondly, I doubt that one could even claim that killing babies is immoral when one has already deemed the killing of a fetus moral. 


laws should be enacted that do the least possible harm to the population as a whole.
 Yes, the government has a duty to serve the country, but they have no obligation to put their "best solution" onto morality rather than applying ethics. My view is that society should prioritize justice and ethical treatment of the individual rather than focusing on appeasing the population. That's called human rights:

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. [https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]

Since you have not defined "person", I demand that we use the word "human" instead. Or you can provide a sufficient definition of personhood.

Topic's author
#128
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Just to be clear, your opinion does in no sense comparable to that of the Nazis. It is just that abortion is supported by the same type of ethical argument the Nazis used.
 -- It excludes someone for no apparent reason other than the opinion of the society/state  (aka "public interest"). It puts society over human rights, invalidating the latter.


If you will, this is our problem:
  • All "persons" are worthy of moral value
  • My definition of "person" includes adults but also includes zygotes and fetuses
  • You have not provided another definition
  • Thus, abortion is immoral if killing adults is immoral

#129
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
I'm unclear on how my system and Nazi Germany's are similar in even this regard.
  1. Saying that society can strip a certain group of humans of moral value since they are the ones granting moral value
  2. Justifying said action by claiming that the group is not necessarily persons, but just living organisms
    1. You claimed that you did not put the unborn as just animals, please explain why you can kill something that is not an animal.
  3. Saying that the government should put the "most beneficial for society" option above the "fairest to each individual" option
    1. I would like you to dispute this claim by proving why your view doesn't result in such a state
The philosophy is different, but the ethical implications are the same. 
So, let's be clear about this first: your case also designates some "humans" as not worthy of moral value. I've been over this several times before, but since your argument necessarily excludes gametes, you leave out some non-zero subset of what could be referred to as humans. Since your argument is that novel DNA is also what makes a human, you also leave out clones and twins. That means that, if these similarities exist between my views and those of Nazi Germany, then they also are similarities with your position. The only difference is where we draw the line, not if we draw it.

I explained elsewhere how I perceive the unborn from a legal perspective, so point 2.1 is addressed elsewhere. I'll see if you respond to that.

Point 3... I'm honestly unsure what you're doing with this one. Most beneficial for society isn't a Nazi ideology. It's not even particularly fascistic, since there's a big difference between the kind of nationalism espoused by Germany and looking to benefit society (which is composed of people and not just industries). But that's not even a fair characterization of my view because legal structures are put in place to be fair to the individual. The reason I consider my case beneficial for society is that it doesn't impose unreasonable burdens on people. Again, if you want to talk about this, we can, but we'll have to step away from personhood to get there. So, no, I'm not particularly interested in responding to 3.1 when it's pretty clear that the claim you're making isn't even an accurate depiction of my argument.

I'm not dismissing the moral implications of any choice, but this is not personal whim
It's a personal whim to let an individual woman kill her offspring if she sees fit. That's like saying: "yes, parents can choose to beat their children if they think it is best". 
...I can't make heads or tails of this. It's not addressing the quoted line and it has nothing to do with my argument. A double whammy.

I don't see how that relates the two stances in any way.
Summary: Saying that society can override human rights - by creating an extra category of non-person humans - who can justly be killed if one deems it beneficial.
...I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this, but this is not my position. My position is not "as long as someone deems it beneficial, societies can designate humans however they want." I've explained my position several times now. If you want more detail on where that position comes from, we can get there, but this is not my position.

I'm not morally justifying it. I'm legally justifying it.
Ok, but it is already legal. You are not making an argument "x is legal because of laws y and z" - but you are making the argument "law x is not morally unjust because y and z"
I'm explaining why a legal system is justified based on the legal consequences of imposing greater restrictions than those currently in existence. So no, I'm not talking about why the law is not morally unjust. I'm talking about why it's the least morally unjust option on the table. All options struggle with moralistic concerns, and trying to argue that any system is entirely devoid of them is just kidding oneself.

I am not denying the fact that any society could choose arbitrarily what laws to pass. But when it comes to ethics, the principles on which morality is deducted, they are clearly not under the power of society. Yes, a society can choose which ethical principles to abide by, but they cannot directly contradict those principles. Or rather, they could, but that would be considered unethical. A Christian nation could not claim to abide by the ten commandments and at the same time persecute Jews - that is objectively unethical by their standard.
Alright, though that seems strange when many Christian nations have justified their actions based on what dictums they perceive in their liturgy. You've made quite a few statements about how religions know better than society, yet there are numerous examples of internal inconsistency and inconsistency between religions. So coming down on a clear "you must do this" is often difficult and, in some cases, completely based on interpretation.

If one wants to condemn nazi Germany, one must believe those objective ethics are superior to societal opinion.
This is starting to get into a tangent, and I'm not interested in going down this path, but saying that there are "objective ethics" is a point of great contention. I don't think you've proven that objective ethics exist, nor that they apply to this particular circumstance. And, as I've said multiple times, my position is not for societal opinion, so you're also providing a false dichotomy.

If we are simply discussing the legal problems with prohibiting abortion then that is fine, but I expected us to talk about ethics.
*sigh* We have, extensively, talked about ethics and the applications of views about when someone is due moral value. I've said it multiple times, but I guess I'll say it again: I don't think moralistic views of this can provide the kind of objective, reality-clarifying view that we need to answer this question. That has been the basis of my argument from the start, yet you seem to brush past it every time you make statements like this. I'm saying that talking about ethics will always lead us down the same rabbit hole of pointing out errors in each others' logic because any choice we make for designating someone who is or is not worthy of moral value is going to come with holes. Whether those holes leave out humans we believe deserve rights or grant rights to beings we would deem unworthy of said rights, that's a problem, and I don't think trying to find ways to fit this square peg into that circular hole make the situation markedly better.

If we do the former then your view is certainly a good one, but if we do the latter I would argue that calling abortion "ethical" while calling the murder of 6-year-olds "unethical" is inconsistent and, in a way, contradictory. That is unless we find an ethical system that allows that. Again, only two ethical systems can allow abortion:
  1. Personhood grants moral value - and it happens after birth
  2. Moral value is calculated by analyzing the individual's traits - for example age, genes or development.
My point is that any of these create other problems. Obviously, the problems would not be "legal", but ethical.
That's a false dilemma. There are other ethical systems that attempt to justify abortion. I'm arguing that all of them are arbitrary, but I'm also arguing that all the ethical systems that disallow abortion are similarly arbitrary. I made an extensive series of points about why your system is arbitrary. Hence, I think this should be decided based on legal ramifications.

A basic principle of ethics is that moral laws should be designed with a devil in mind. Our moral laws should not contain any loopholes that can be exploited, neither by an individual or society as a whole. Therefore, when making moral laws, we must assume that people have the worst intentions at heart. We must assume that people want to kill each other - so that we do not make it possible to kill and then say: "I am smart and I found this loophole, so my action was just". This means that we must take as a given that people want to kill Jews, Christians, lesbians, children, old people, fetuses, and every other group. If we grant moral value based on "what's most beneficial for society" then that can be subjective, as there are no ways to predict the future harm/benefits of each action. Stalin might have thought that his actions were beneficial in the long run, so how would you condemn him? Your argument of course was that we MUST grant moral value before birth. First of all, I think that as I am sure you would condemn the killing of a 16-year-old, even if society considered it "least harmful". Secondly, I doubt that one could even claim that killing babies is immoral when one has already deemed the killing of a fetus moral. 
...But your moral views have clear loopholes. I pointed them out, extensively. Your system could, therefore, similarly be misused. But you're also not representing my system well, so I'm unclear on where bad intentions could twist my system to become damaging. I'm not sure how it leads to the killing of all these other groups simply by virtue of the fact that it's not based on an ethical framework regarding how to designate what is and is not a person. That doesn't make it a purely subjective system where everyone can just decide their views on the importance of a given group based solely on how they feel on a given day. Would really appreciate if you could engage with the argument I'm making because I'm still seeing a lot of straw man responses.
#130
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin

laws should be enacted that do the least possible harm to the population as a whole.
 Yes, the government has a duty to serve the country, but they have no obligation to put their "best solution" onto morality rather than applying ethics. My view is that society should prioritize justice and ethical treatment of the individual rather than focusing on appeasing the population. That's called human rights:

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. [https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]

Since you have not defined "person", I demand that we use the word "human" instead. Or you can provide a sufficient definition of personhood.
I don't see how your response here actually addresses the point I was making, which is the core of the principle that underpins my whole argument. I honestly don't get this line at all: "they have no obligation to put their "best solution" onto morality rather than applying ethics." Seriously, I'm re-reading this for the fifth time, and I don't know what you're saying. Maybe this is a response to me, but I can't figure out how it addresses my point.

And the rest of this is just revisiting the same tired points that you've been making all along. I've argued repeatedly that defining what a person is is replete with problems. I've also argued that defining who should get rights based on how science defines what a human is is replete with problems. I'm not arguing that we should do either. I don't know how I can say that any more clearly.

If you will, this is our problem:
  • All "persons" are worthy of moral value
  • My definition of "person" includes adults but also includes zygotes and fetuses
  • You have not provided another definition
  • Thus, abortion is immoral if killing adults is immoral
...We had a very long discussion about all of this. Like, seriously, all of it, which you dropped in favor of focusing hard on my view, which I will note you've barely addressed. I think what we should be doing is deciding whether it makes sense to try to designate whether someone is due rights based on some arbitrary selection of traits that make a person a person. I've pointed out numerous ways in which the trait you've selected is flawed. Your response, so far, is to say that I don't have an alternative... which has literally been my point all along: that there is no alternative that's any better because many of the choices we could make are equally fraught. You can argue at all you want that you need to do this, but whether we use person or human, you have yet to present a moral view of personhood that doesn't run into the same problems you've decried from other systems, including loopholes and just being massively overbroad. I don't see why I have to buy into your worldview that personhood must be discretely applied when all the same problems you ascribe to a system where that doesn't happen apply to your system.

Topic's author
#131
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
So, let's be clear about this first: your case also designates some "humans" as not worthy of moral value.
No. My real case is that ALL HUMANS are worthy of moral value. I said that the distinction between human and person is completely arbitrary and therefore not valid. My point is really that no human should be intentionally killed. The only reason that I used DNA was to show that abortion was immoral EVEN IF "personhood" is a real standard for moral value. How? Like this:
  • If all humans have moral value then abortion is immoral
  • Assume personhood grants moral value:
    • If Personhood is granted all humans - abortion is immoral
    • If personhood is granted when one has human DNA - abortion is immoral.
    • If personhood is granted at birth, then killing a baby after birth is not really immoral if the baby is born too early
    • The only alternative which allows abortion is a relativistic one: after "arbitrary" time you cannot do it any more.
      • The idea that personhood is granted during pregnancy is way to unclear and arbitrary to even compete with the other definitions of personhood
  • Conclusion: abortion is immoral under both ethical system.

My point is that since NO system can justify abortion non-arbitrary, and that the real non-arbitrary points condemn it, abortion is immoral.

You might be right that it should not be made illegal, but in any case, it is unethical.


necessarily excludes gametes, you leave out some non-zero subset of what could be referred to as humans.
gametes COULD be referenced to as humans. But biologically speaking they aren't. Just like an unfertilized egg is not the same as a chicken. I said that novel DNA made one a person because all zygots are humans. But if a gamete is a human, like you claimed, then we should not kill it either. As for the example with twins, they are humans - biologically speaking. So is a clone. A fundamental part of my point is that no humans should be killed intentionally. The only reason that I used DNA was that many people do not consider a fetus to be a human. But since you accept the fact that a zygote is a human then we already have to grant it moral value according to my view.



what we should be doing is deciding whether it makes sense to try to designate whether someone is due rights based on some arbitrary selection of traits
No, it doesn't, I agree. There is no reason to make a distinction between a person and a human. Therefore, we should grant everyone moral rights. Or maybe grant nobody it. 



I understand your point:
  • Personhood is arbitrary
  • Politics are not arbitrary
  • Therefore, politics can decide what is "best" for society - even if it includes killing humans


My point is:
  • If one wants to kill something, you must prove that thing is not a human. It is not the opposite way around. 



...But your moral views have clear loopholes. I pointed them out, extensively. Your system could, therefore, similarly be misused. 
Even if that was true, which I disagree with, it still doesn't make it as bad. Who would actually care to kill their gametes? They die on their own, no need for intentional killing.


summary:
  • I believe all humans are entitled to moral value and human rights
  • I think abortion is immoral and should be abandoned since nothing tells me why a fetus is not the same as a human
Do you agree or do you think that 
defining what a person is is replete with problems
Either way, "personhood" as a term should be abandoned, and moral value be granted to all humans.
Topic's author
#132
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
if these similarities exist between my views and those of Nazi Germany, then they also are similarities with your position. 
Not necessarily. I am not arguing that gametes can be justly killed, I am arguing that a fetus cannot be justly killed.

If gametes are human beings they should not be killed. But since I have defined moral value on being human, no human will be stripped of moral value


I also want to repeat that the UN universal human rights support my claim that moral value cannot be restricted to any type of humans.
#133
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
The reason you selected DNA was because you claim that DNA is what makes us human. I had a huge set of responses, many of which pointed out loopholes in that argument and how it clearly extends beyond what any of us would consider to be worthy of moral value, to which your only response was that you disagreed and then you moved onto my position. You can't now pretend that that set of arguments doesn't exist in order to claim that your position is non-arbitrary and objective. It's neither. I've argued that at length, addressing each piece of your argument to do it. I've even explained why gametes must be considered human based on your argument, and examined how I could even engineer gametes with novel DNA, meeting your definition for what makes a human. If that isn't human, then what traits distinguish it from humanity? And if twins and clones are human, then why do they get that designation when they clearly don't have novel DNA? It sounds to me like you're adding traits to what makes a human, saying that there's something about their biology that separates them. What is that biological trait or set of traits? Should I throw out novel DNA as the reason you're using if you're just going to shift to a different biological trait? Seriously, pick a lane.

I understand your point:
  • Personhood is arbitrary
  • Politics are not arbitrary
  • Therefore, politics can decide what is "best" for society - even if it includes killing humans
...I'm sorry, this was not my point. I didn't argue that personhood is arbitrary, I said that we often apply it arbitrarily and that we haven't found an objective way to apply it that doesn't run into problems. I didn't argue that politics are not arbitrary, I said that the harm that legal systems cause is not an arbitrary choice for implementing policy. And no, I did not say that politics can decide what is "best" for society. You've repeated that straw man several times. It's not at all accurate to my position.

My point is:
  • If one wants to kill something, you must prove that thing is not a human. It is not the opposite way around. 
And if we're not equipped to make that distinction, then we need to massively expand the pool of beings that get human rights. We need to do that well beyond gestation and recognize that every human cell we grow in a lab setting is worthy of the same rights, and animals that grow human cells are worthy of those rights. Just because your system guarantees rights to all humans doesn't mean that it's necessarily better, especially when those rights come into conflict with other humans.

Even if that was true, which I disagree with, it still doesn't make it as bad. Who would actually care to kill their gametes? They die on their own, no need for intentional killing.
I responded to this ages ago. You dropped that point.

summary:
  • I believe all humans are entitled to moral value and human rights
  • I think abortion is immoral and should be abandoned since nothing tells me why a fetus is not the same as a human
Yes, I understand your perspective. We're debating what underpins that perspective. You're welcome to hold it, but so far, you haven't convinced me that it is the most appropriate way to view this issue. The goal here should not be to convince one another, but to have a discussion on what holds up under scrutiny. We can walk away from this with the same positions on the topic and still be better informed on how we apply our individual logics to it. At this point, it seems to me we're going around in circles because we keep coming back to the same issues instead of moving forward and addressing the problems with our perspectives. If you want to do that with mine, we need to leave personhood behind and discuss what underpins my view. If you want to keep the focus on personhood, then your perspective, which relies on inherent rights ascribed by personhood (or humanity), is the one that remains under scrutiny.

Not necessarily. I am not arguing that gametes can be justly killed, I am arguing that a fetus cannot be justly killed.

If gametes are human beings they should not be killed. But since I have defined moral value on being human, no human will be stripped of moral value


I also want to repeat that the UN universal human rights support my claim that moral value cannot be restricted to any type of humans.
...Seriously, what? You're not arguing that gametes can be justly killed? You're arguing that human rights begin at the zygote! That means gametes don't have them, which, yes, means they can justly be killed! How does your perspective work if that's not true?!

And, again, just because a lot of people agree with you (and I could point to the UN as an example where that's a mixed bag) doesn't mean your perspective is correct. It just means you're on a bandwagon, not that the bandwagon is more morally righteous.