Why does it matter whether a fetus is life or not?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The debate over abortion always seems to boil down to one fundamental question: is a fetus life or not? This is something that has always perplexed me, as whether or not it is life seems wholly irrelevant. Even if it is determined to be life, we have an undying contempt for the majority of all life on this planet. Bacteria, mold, single-celled organisms, insects, and generally anything that isn't a mammal are frequently killed by people without a second thought. So what difference does it make if a fetus is a life? I kill all types of life on a regular basis so why not that week-old fetus that is little more than a cluster of cells?

In the same way that it being alive does not make it so sacred, it not being alive does not mean it should not be cared for and protected. Even if it isn't life, it still has a great deal of potential to become not just life, but human life, and most will agree that human life is something to be cherished and defended. Furthermore, a late-term abortion could be incredibly painful to the fetus, regardless of whether or not it is alive. It need not be alive to have a nervous system and be able to feel its own death. We shouldn't be bickering over whether a fetus fits the arbitrary criteria with which we define life. We should be asking how developed the fetus is. Can it feel pain? Is it likely to become a life-form whose rights are universally accepted (i.e., is it likely to be born)? In the case of Christians, when does a fetus get a soul?

Ok, now that I'm done with that semi-rant, some questions for debate:

Should whether or not a fetus is a life affect how we treat it?

What other criteria should be evaluated when determining what rights a fetus has?

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Ah, the old appeal to force. Better agree with me or me and my buddies will kill you! Great argument guys, great justification.

If you say:

"I have subjective morality and blah blah blah"

YOU ARE LYING. You don't have any "morality", for you have just admitted that good and evil don't actually exist, and therefore your "morality": the principles concerning the distinction of what is good and evil is a lie. If you don't believe in good and evil, which you cannot if they are not universal concepts, than you cannot be moral, since morality is acting according to assumption that good and evil are universal, objective concepts.

I am telling you that I, an amoralist, probably act in much the same way as you: a "subjective" moralist. If a person decides to follow some BS vision of "morality" than that is their lie and their deception. What good have they done or evil have they prevented if good and evil are subjective terms with no true meaning? What use is morality if it is subjective and therefore changes at the whim of the one who is holding it? How can that even be called morality? Because one claims to follow it? Because you claim it is morality? Sorry if I don't believe you but I have yet to see any evidence of this "subjective morality".

If right and wrong are subjective than they have no meaning. What is "right" now becomes "whatever I happen to like at this exact moment", which would be a value judgement based on your opinion.

When you get right down to it: none of you are moral. Not a single one of you even tried to give any justification for murdering or caging a human being simply for disagreeing with the majority. Oh sure you talked about the "social contract" which I did not sign or agree to so therefore cannot even be called a contract, but that is more excuses. You don't like the criminal, and a bunch of people don't like him, so you will imprison him.

If the South won the Civil War, than slavery would be right.
If Hitler had won WW2, than genocide would be right.
If I kill you and get away with it, I was right.

You have reduced right and wrong to "got caught or got away".


as for the altruism:

The definition I gave came from the dictionary I used. If you have another, post the actual definition. Also, prove to me that the squirrel deliberately pursued the interests of others. Keep in mind that one cannot be instinctually altruistic, one must make the CHOICE to be altruistic.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Alright, I give up. I've repeated myself far too many times in this topic to do so again. My point's obviously not getting across and little is going to change that.

[scourge99]

Please learn to use the quote system and this discussion will become a lot more clear for both you and I. I can message you how if you need a 5 minute tutorial.

Ah, the old appeal to force. Better agree with me or me and my buddies will kill you! Great argument guys, great justification.

Please explain exactly how the fallacy is invalid in this case. If you claim to understand formal logic then you should have no problem showing this.

The simple fact is that I'm not claiming that societies ability to force you to do something means it is universally correct and right. All I am saying is that the society deems it correct and right.

YOU ARE LYING. You don't have any "morality", for you have just admitted that good and evil don't actually exist, and therefore your "morality": the principles concerning the distinction of what is good and evil is a lie. If you don't believe in good and evil, which you cannot if they are not universal concepts, than you cannot be moral, since morality is acting according to assumption that good and evil are universal, objective concepts.

No, you just don't get it.

I have morality. Its of my own making because I decide what is right and wrong for ME. TAD-AH! Morality!

I am telling you that I, an amoralist, probably act in much the same way as you: a "subjective" moralist.

So then you do have morals otherwise how would you decide what is right or wrong. Simply because yours may change or be dependent on other things, or recognize that morality is subjective doesn't mean you don't have a particular moral view.

If a person decides to follow some BS vision of "morality" than that is their lie and their deception.

Who says they are deceiving themselves? My morality is based on what I think is best. Perhaps other people willfully deceive themselves.

What good have they done or evil have they prevented if good and evil are subjective terms with no true meaning?

if Good and evil are subjective, which I believe they are, then you would probably have ethics that are opposed to those.

What use is morality if it is subjective and therefore changes at the whim of the one who is holding it?

Because societies are more efficient with mutual understanding of right and wrong.

How can that even be called morality? Because one claims to follow it? Because you claim it is morality? Sorry if I don't believe you but I have yet to see any evidence of this "subjective morality".

So you can't comprehend that a person, for whatever reason, can find certain actions unacceptable? And that two or more people may agree on those things? You don't understand that simple concept?

If right and wrong are subjective than they have no meaning.

WRONG again. I believe some things are right and other things wrong and other things "meh". Such is called my SUBJECTIVE MORALITY.

What is "right" now becomes "whatever I happen to like at this exact moment",

Well a lot of poeple THINK about what is right and wrong before hand and train ourselves to not react counter to it.

which would be a value judgement based on your opinion.

And what is wrong with that?

When you get right down to it: none of you are moral.

From what perspective? yours? Mine? which society? Please qualify your statement.

If the South won the Civil War, than slavery would be right.

No! It would only be right to those who believe it is right. You are confusing law, cumulative morals, and individual morals.

If Hitler had won WW2, than genocide would be right.

Once again, it would only be right to those who believe it is right.

If I kill you and get away with it, I was right.

If you honestly believe that in your subjective opinion then you are absolutely correct.

You have reduced right and wrong to "got caught or got away".

No, that is only a strawman you have created.

The definition I gave came from the dictionary I used. If you have another, post the actual definition. Also, prove to me that the squirrel deliberately pursued the interests of others. Keep in mind that one cannot be instinctually altruistic, one must make the CHOICE to be altruistic.

I've already shown why your definition is useless. It is logically impossible and thus worthless. What you are saying with your definition: altruism - consciously doing something for others or the perceived common good without wanting to do something for others or the perceived common good.

altruism - is the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others.

I'm fairly certain you don't believe in freewill so how does a squirrel's altruistic actions differ from mine if we are all just a bunch of meat machines? It doesn't differ.

[ConfinedIX]

My point is, in fact, that it is irrelevant. However, the state of existence is what people tend to focus on when discussing abortion. Anti-abortion people identify themselves as pro-life for a reason, and attempts to dissuade pro-lifers are usually centered around disproving that a fetus is an independent life form.

I am a little bit late entering this discussion so forgive me the lateness of this post.

Well let us think about it like this for a moment shall we?

The fetus is a form of life that has an umbilical cord. The umbilical cord is used to transport nourishment from the host and wastes from the fetus. So the fetus takes nourishment from the host and expels it's waste from the umbilical cord as well.

Parasite - 1) an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. 2) a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Based on the above definition (Definition 2 from dictionary.com) it is unreasonable to say a fetus is a parasite that lives off the nutrients of the host while it expels the waste it produces into the host?

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

I know how to use the quote system. I choose not to. I will address this post to you, hope that helps with the confusion.

I don't "decide" what is "right" or "wrong". I do what I want and if that helps me, good. If it hurts you, don't care. Right and wrong are what makes me feel good. Tell me, how are you any different?

If Good and Evil are subjective, than they have no meaning and are not even worth the effort to say them. What use will you have? You say its right, I say its wrong? Who's right? Both of us? Neither one? How can two contradictory ideas be true at the same time? I don't understand what argument you are making.

Because societies are more efficient with mutual understanding of right and wrong.

Prove it.

So you can't comprehend that a person, for whatever reason, can find certain actions unacceptable? And that two or more people may agree on those things?

Never said that. I said that a person finding a thing to be unacceptable to them only means that they do not like that thing. If someone agrees with you, than you are both saying: "We don't like that." My question to you is: why should I have to pay any attention to what you don't like?

WRONG again. I believe some things are right and other things wrong and other things "meh". Such is called my SUBJECTIVE MORALITY.

Actually, if wrong and right are subjective: I am right.

Well a lot of poeple THINK about what is right and wrong before hand and train ourselves to not react counter to it.

And? So what is "right" now becomes "whatever I happen to like at this particular moment; regardless of whether I liked it before or not." Just because you have "trained" yourself not to react to it, does not mean that you won't or can't.

I want you to find a group of African Americans, get em all together, and tell them that the slavery is right, as long as you believe it is.

Then get them Jews, and repeat.

You seem to be confused about the definition of "right". You should look it up.

What you are saying with your definition: altruism - consciously doing something for others or the perceived common good without wanting to do something for others or the perceived common good.

No. This is not what I said. This is what I said:

Altruism is the practice of selfless concern for the well-being of others.

If I save a person from a fire just so that I can get that ten bucks he owes me back, that is not altruism. If I don't think about the ten bucks and with no regard to myself dive in to save him, that is altruism.

I most definitely believe in free-will. At least, I believe in free-will for myself. I have never seen any proof that anyone else has it.

Especially not a squirrel. I can pretty much tell you with 100% certainty that squirrels don't have free-will, and therefore cannot act altruistically.

I meant post the dictionary from which you are getting the definition (which I don't totally disagree with)

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Parasite - 1) an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. 2) a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Based on the above definition (Definition 2 from dictionary.com) it is unreasonable to say a fetus is a parasite that lives off the nutrients of the host while it expels the waste it produces into the host?

And? What's your point?

[ConfinedIX]

Parasite - 1) an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. 2) a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Based on the above definition (Definition 2 from dictionary.com) it is unreasonable to say a fetus is a parasite that lives off the nutrients of the host while it expels the waste it produces into the host?

And? What's your point?

My point is that it does not matter if a fetus is alive or not. My point indicates that a fetus is a parasite, like a leech. The fetus is dependent on the host staying alive and treating themselves to the best of the their ability.

More over my biggest point is to show people what a fetus is. A fetus, based on what I have explained, is a parasite that uses it's host to gain nutrients for it's growth while polluting the host's body.

Now one can look at what I have said and go either way on what they believe. You can either take this and argue with it that a fetus is a living organism dependent on a host for survival or you can take this and argue that a fetus is a living thing which is a parasite that drains the host. I believe this outlook can be used for Pro-life and Pro-abortion debates.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Well, a two year old child is basically a parasite. Sure its not biologically dependent upon the mother, but it is entirely dependent on its parents. It is both a "drain" to the parents and a living human.

The fact is this: we have put an arbitrary line where we decide what is human and what is not. And the creation of that line most definitely had nothing to do with "science" or "moral arguments".

The question then becomes: how do I value human life?

Most people, it seems, don't value it highly enough to take what measures could ensure that no human life is possibly taken. So abortion remains, to some degree, legal.

[McCulloch]

Well, a two year old child is basically a parasite.

Except that a two year old child is easily transferable to the care of another.

[Grumpy]

theAtheistofnoIllusions

I don't "decide" what is "right" or "wrong". I do what I want and if that helps me, good. If it hurts you, don't care. Right and wrong are what makes me feel good. Tell me, how are you any different?

We seem to be adults, accepting that we must adhere to certain "rules" in order to live in a mutually acceptable society. Call them ethics, morals, whatever, we accept that those rules are neccessary for the organism known as human society to continue to survive.

You, on the other hand, are advocating the morals of a rabid dog(IE none). We call that being a sociopath. Those who act in that fashion will be put down like a rabid dog would, for the good of society. Not only is that a threat to the sociopath, but a promise to the rest of society that they will be protected from the sociopaths.

And being a sociopath has nothing to do with being an atheist, the guy who blows up an abortion clinic is just as much a sociopath.

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the one." Spock

Grumpy