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?

[scourge99]

And what please means all this in regard to homicidalcherrys original question ?
there surely is a connection but this here has run totally out off-topic.

Actually it is still on topic. We are discussing the premises and foundations of rights, law, and order. All of which are relevant to answering the OP.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Well I had a long, detailed post explaining my position, but it took too long to right and I got logged off, and lost my message. So I will try to paraphrase it.

A thing cannot be "true from one perspective" and "false from the other perspective"

Truth is defined as "in accordance with reality or fact."

One's perspective is the way one views the world, one's subjective "take" on the sensual information he is perceiving. If a thing is "true" it is true regardless of one's perspective, for one's perspective is just the inferences one gathers about reality, not reality itself.

I made the argument that murder is not just Ok, but is morally just, a righteous action. You say that murder is morally unjust, a wrongful action. Which of us is right (correct)?

There are only three answers:

1. I am correct, and you are incorrect.

2. You are correct and I am incorrect.

3. We are both incorrect. (which would be the amoralists point, that the action is neither right nor wrong)

However, based on the definition of "truth", we cannot both be correct. One of us must be wrong, and one must be right, or we are both wrong. To say that both of us are correct would be to deny that perspective is one's view of reality, but that one's perspective IS reality.

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

You, having never lived in a society which did not have a mutual understanding of right and wrong, cannot support this statement. As far as you know a society without a mutual understanding of right and wrong works just fine.

In conclusion:

Good and Evil exist and therefore actions can be Good or Evil and people can possess morality, or Good and Evil do not exist, there is no action which is Good or Evil, and therefore morality does not exist.

However, if one accepts the definitions of Good and Evil (that they are mutually exclusive), which one must do to argue with the terms, one cannot say an action is Evil from one perspective but Good from another. To say this would be to imply that your opinion on your perception of the action changed the nature of the action itself, or that the nature of the action is only determined after the fact by the perception, both statements imply a subjective reality.

[scourge99]

Well I had a long, detailed post explaining my position, but it took too long to right and I got logged off, and lost my message. So I will try to paraphrase it.

that sucks. Press the back button on your browser. Sometimes the text stays in the field. But I've had that issue before and its extremely frustrating. A good habit to start is to copy your post before doing anything such as hitting the preview or submit button. I oftentimes work in a word processor since the screen is bigger and I can save easier.

[scourge99]

A thing cannot be "true from one perspective" and "false from the other perspective"

Truth is defined as "in accordance with reality or fact."

Truth depends on the perspective. If you are talking about universal objective truth (a truth that exists independent of thought or an observer as part of reality) then there can be only one truth. But it is presumptuous to assume that everything is universally objective. It is also difficult to ascertain what is objective and what is not.

Once again, using the happiness example, what makes us happy is relative, it is subjective. We all understand what happiness is but what makes us happy is subjective. Likewise there are some things that makes just about everyone unhappy and others that make just about everyone happy (universally objective), but that doesn't mean everything that makes one person happy is universally objective.

Assuming that you are not the only self-aware being within objective reality then your subjective opinion on what is truth isn't necessarily truth. Its only your subjective opinion on what is truth. It is truth to you, but not necessarily truth in regards to objective reality.

One's perspective is the way one views the world, one's subjective "take" on the sensual information he is perceiving. If a thing is "true" it is true regardless of one's perspective, for one's perspective is just the inferences one gathers about reality, not reality itself.

Correct. But we are discussing both OBJECTIVE reality and subjective reality. If you assume that there is a reality that exists in and of itself without necessitating your existence (objective reality) then you subjective perspective on truth is irrelevant to it. You can test this yourself. For example, believe that you have a billion dollars or that if you flap your hands hard enough you will fly. Or perhaps something a bit more believable: try to move something with your mind. Try it. See if OBJECTIVE reality bends to your SUBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE of reality. One's subjective perspective on truth is irrelevant to what is objective truth.

If you SUBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE on reality is truth then why can;t you manipulate reality on your beliefs alone? Why can't you move thins with your mind or teleport around? Why can't the crazy homeless man who thinks he is Napoleon actually turn into Napoleon? Objective Reality.

I made the argument that murder is not just Ok, but is morally just, a righteous action. You say that murder is morally unjust, a wrongful action. Which of us is right (correct)?

There are only three answers:

1. I am correct, and you are incorrect.

2. You are correct and I am incorrect.

3. We are both incorrect. (which would be the amoralists point, that the action is neither right nor wrong)

Once again, "right" and "wrong" are predicated on a perspective. There is your perspective, my perspective, another's perspective and then the omniscient/objective perspective. From my perspective you are wrong and I am right. From your perspective you are right and I am wrong. From someone else's perspective you may be right, wrong, or neutral. The omniscient perspective does not exist because morality is by definition a subjective opinion. In lay-mans terms: the universe doesn't "care" one way or another. (note: if you believe in God then you might argue that God says its wrong therefore its objectively wrong. but that is a whole different story which ends up in a discussion of Euthyphro's dilemma.)

However, based on the definition of "truth", we cannot both be correct. One of us must be wrong, and one must be right, or we are both wrong. To say that both of us are correct would be to deny that perspective is one's view of reality, but that one's perspective IS reality.

I am not denying that you don't have a perspective and you think its reality. What I am saying is that your perspective is a subjective perspective of OBJECTIVE reality. Like I said, test reality by trying to willfully change it. When it doesn't work you'll realize that an objective reality is a reasonable explanation about why your subjective perspective doesn't affect reality.

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

You, having never lived in a society which did not have a mutual understanding of right and wrong, cannot support this statement. As far as you know a society without a mutual understanding of right and wrong works just fine.

Au contraire, we have examples who societies that lose law and order and thus a basis for establishing right and wrong all the time. And we see what becomes of them. Chaos.

In conclusion:

Good and Evil exist and therefore actions can be Good or Evil and people can possess morality, or Good and Evil do not exist, there is no action which is Good or Evil, and therefore morality does not exist.

Good and evil are subjective terms used to describe actions from a self-aware subjective perspective--this is not dependent on whether objective good and evil exists or not. I can and have demonstrated this over and over again with examples.

There is subjective good and evil and objective good and evil. The former is known to be true assuming that more than a single self conscious being exists (someone other than our self; there is overwhelming evidence for this). The latter can be true, but not necessarily true for all cases, with or without the existence of God(s).

However, if one accepts the definitions of Good and Evil (that they are mutually exclusive), which one must do to argue with the terms, one cannot say an action is Evil from one perspective but Good from another. To say this would be to imply that your opinion on your perception of the action changed the nature of the action itself

Absolutely incorrect. My disagreeing with what you believe is evil does not actually change objective reality of whether its evil nor does it change your subjective opinion that its good. Its merely an assertion by me that the action is evil and an assertion by you that the action id good.

, or that the nature of the action is only determined after the fact by the perception

That doesn't even make sense. peoples subjective perspective on reality does not make objective reality warp to their will. This is demonstrable.

both statements imply a subjective reality.

We have a subjective PERSPECTIVE of reality. Reality is not subjective in that if you believe something reality warps to your belief. We have a subjective PERSPECTIVE of an OBJECTIVE reality.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Subjective reality? Subjective truth?

Oxymorons.

The omniscient perspective does not exist because morality is by definition a subjective opinion.

Begging the question.

we have examples who societies that lose law and order and thus a basis for establishing right and wrong all the time.

Law and Order are not Right and Wrong.

There is subjective good and evil and objective good and evil. The former is known to be true assuming that more than a single self conscious being exists (someone other than our self; there is overwhelming evidence for this). The latter can be true, but not necessarily true for all cases, with or without the existence of God(s).

Subjective good and evil? Good and Evil that depend on the mind for existence, or Good and Evil that are influenced by personal opinions, desires, etc.? And how does the existence of a disagreement prove that that both disagreements are necessarily true? Which is what you are assuming.

Just because I say a thing is good and you disagree does not mean that we both MUST be right. Only that we disagree and one or both of us MUST be WRONG.


I never said I told the truth or even believed that truth 100% of the time, quite the opposite actually. I said that one can believe a lie, which means that one's subjective view on reality is irrelevant to the actual nature of reality. Whether you believe in good and evil or not, they either exist or do not exist. If they actually exist (which they can only with a God) then one's opinion on them is irrelevant. If they do not actually exist, than they are meaningless terms without any application. One might as well say: "What I like and what I don't like."

[tickitytak]

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?

first of all, a fetus does not have a self-aware consciousness. this fact alone should be enough to settle whether or not it deserves rights. it will not be missed once it dies. it will not think to itself "i wish i wouldn't have been aborted". its death would be meaningless just as everything else in existence is meaningless until it or something else gives it subjective meaning.

if a fetus has the right to live, i expect bacteria and viruses to have the same right. i expect all organisms in the entire universe (no matter how pesky, disgusting, or inconvenient they are) to be allowed to live. if this were proposed though, people would argue that only organisms with the potential to develop into humans in their lifetime would be granted this right. but what the fuck kind of double standard is that? are we really that full of ourselves? that kind of perspective is just an example of our incredibly self-absorbed species, pretending as if we're beyond nature and better than everything else. we are no better. we don't deserve life any more than any other organism.

a fetus means nothing until you give it meaning, and lack of meaning is only bad if you perceive it so.

[tickitytak]

scourge99,

i absolutely agree with you.

i have no inclination to believe that objective morality exists nor that it could possibly exist. if God's will were to be objective morality, it would be purely subjective.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 7 Post 66:

first of all, a fetus does not have a self-aware consciousness. this fact alone should be enough to settle whether or not it deserves rights.

At a certain point fetuses can feel pain. It is my contention this pain is a reflection of a certain self-awareness, in that pain is a means of "understanding" one is in potential or real danger. Also there's the issue of folks who are in a vegetative state, and the rights we grant those folks.

it will not be missed once it dies. it will not think to itself "i wish i wouldn't have been aborted".

There are some mothers who miss their aborted fetuses for long periods afterwards, up to and including typical grieving behaviors.

its death would be meaningless just as everything else in existence is meaningless until it or something else gives it subjective meaning.

Perhaps to you. The many folks who object to abortion would indicate they at least find a "meaning" for the fetus.

if a fetus has the right to live, i expect bacteria and viruses to have the same right.

There are bacteria within the human body that are required for our full functionality. I would dare say attempts to remove these bacteria from existence would be met with stiff resistance.

i expect all organisms in the entire universe (no matter how pesky, disgusting, or inconvenient they are) to be allowed to live. if this were proposed though, people would argue that only organisms with the potential to develop into humans in their lifetime would be granted this right. but what the **** kind of double standard is that?

I agree somewhat. I worry about theists that look at the world as "for man to do with as he pleases". Fortunately this seems to be a rather small portion of theists.

a fetus means nothing until you give it meaning, and lack of meaning is only bad if you perceive it so.

Many anti-abortionists consider the fetus has "meaning" simply by nature of its being a human, or potential human.

[scourge99]

Subjective reality? Subjective truth? Oxymorons.

This is called cherry picking. When you can't quote and respond to what I wrote directly then its not surprising you don't understand what is being explained.

The omniscient perspective does not exist because morality is by definition a subjective opinion.

Begging the question.

Then tell me what question I am begging if you are so confident I am begging the question.

we have examples who societies that lose law and order and thus a basis for establishing right and wrong all the time.

Law and Order are not Right and Wrong.

Where did I say they were? Nonetheless let me clarify: "societies are more efficient with mutual understanding of right and wrong....we have examples of societies that lose law and order and thus a basis for establishing [a mutual understanding of] right and wrong all the time. And we see what becomes of them. Chaos.

There is subjective good and evil and objective good and evil. The former is known to be true assuming that more than a single self conscious being exists (someone other than our self; there is overwhelming evidence for this). The latter can be true, but not necessarily true for all cases, with or without the existence of God(s).

Subjective good and evil? Good and Evil that depend on the mind for existence, or Good and Evil that are influenced by personal opinions, desires, etc.?

I fail to see the difference between the two. "Personal opinions, desires, etc" are a subset of things in which many people utilize in making subjective determinations.

And how does the existence of a disagreement prove that that both disagreements are necessarily true?

Once again, from whose perspective?????? Yours? Mine? The guy down the street? From an objective perspective? From an omniscient perspective?

Just because I say a thing is good and you disagree does not mean that we both MUST be right. Only that we disagree and one or both of us MUST be WRONG.

Or the two people making claims to truth are both wrong because the question is not a tautology.

Furthermore, this is complicated by the fact that our basis for claiming truth is limited because we are non-omniscient.

I said that one can believe a lie, which means that one's subjective view on reality is irrelevant to the actual nature of reality.

This is all dependent on the age old question: WHAT is true reality (truth) and how are you so sure? There are many valid beliefs that are contradictory. And guess what? Its possible more than one could be right! Its possible that contradictions do, in fact, exist. Though, personally, I find it highly unlikely.

Whether you believe in good and evil or not, they either exist or do not exist.

Lets assume they don't (which is what i believe).

If they actually exist (which they can only with a God) then one's opinion on them is irrelevant.

not quite true. For example, atheists can believe that the universe is created in such a manner that certain actions are contradictory to some natural purpose or goal. Thus: objective morality. E.G., natural law. Personally, I don't find it convincing, but its plausible (I.E., its logically sound; it does not violate the rules of logic).

One might as well say: "What I like and what I don't like."

I agree. And what I like and don't like is used to determine my subjective morality. Which leads us to my point all along: even though my morality and society's morality is subjective, it does not mean we don't have a basis for imposing it upon you. Our basis for imposing our morality on you is that we don't like actions contradictory to our morality. (but that is just one philosophical perspective).

[tickitytak]

From Page 7 Post 66:

At a certain point fetuses can feel pain. It is my contention this pain is a reflection of a certain self-awareness, in that pain is a means of "understanding" one is in potential or real danger. Also there's the issue of folks who are in a vegetative state, and the rights we grant those folks.

a self-aware consciousness and a consciousness are not the same thing. self-aware consciousness is awareness of the self, of the persona. consciousness is simply awareness of environmental stimulations. a computer program is conscious in this same way.

is pain truly experienced if there is no awareness of the self?

There are some mothers who miss their aborted fetuses for long periods afterwards, up to and including typical grieving behaviors.

Perhaps to you. The many folks who object to abortion would indicate they at least find a "meaning" for the fetus.

Many anti-abortionists consider the fetus has "meaning" simply by nature of its being a human, or potential human.

all meaning is purely subjective. there is no objective meaning. in other words, everything is meaningless until it is given subjective meaning. the concept of significance is a human creation.