The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[AndreusMaximus]

In reading all this, please keep in mind that I use the word "rational" a lot. I am not using it in a strict sense; I am using it to refer to the unique ability that humans have for reason, self-awareness, etc, at the level that other animals lack.

C'mon man. In terms of being able to perceive pain. We don't know if a particular fetus will never be able to perceive pain. Regardless of whether it can or can't, it's of the type that can at a certain stage of development. Let's stick to reason here. The left image below is the stage at which you think it's murder. The right image, according to my google search, is about the earliest consensus at which it can percieve pain.

View attachment 346712 View attachment 346713

I think visualizing this, you'd likely get more people on board that would view abortions at the stage in the image on the right, than on the left.

I think we had a disconnect here somewhere.

I am asking if you could provide me with your definition of "person." Right now we've narrowed down our debate to whether/if/when a fetus meets the definition of the word "person", and so I'd like to first hear your definition of "person." I'm not asking for a definition that is specifically garnered towards the issue of abortion, I am asking for your definition, in general. If you were talking to aliens who had no idea about human culture, morals, etc, and they were asking you about your morals and you told them "I think the unjustified killing of a person is wrong" and they then ask "Okay, but what is a person?", how would you answer?

That's why I brought up the concept of a human being who has some sort of sensory issue that stops them from feeling pain. I'm not talking specifically about a fetus that couldn't ever feel pain, the hypothetical human could be an adult, a newborn, a child, whatever; that's irrelevant to the point. I'm sure they would still count as being a person to you. I get the feeling that pain is not something you would normally bring up at all in defining a "person", except that we're honed in on the abortion issue right now and you want to make sure that your definition carves out enough room that a fetus in the early stages of development won't fit. If I'm wrong about that, please provide me your general definition of "person" that demonstrates otherwise.

Colloquial is fine. No worries. As long as we get our points across.

Thanks. I promise I'll do my best not to turn around and be too pedantic over definitions (though I may have already done that above.)

Okay so the ability to think rationally is what makes it immoral to kill humans in the womb as apposed to any other creature?

There are a couple additional logical steps needed to get to the conclusion, but ultimately, yes.

What's the rationale that makes thinking rationally makes it a moral issue then?

I think we may have arrived at my a priori point. I don't know that I really have a rationale for this, I think this is the starting point that I would like to begin at as our given; our first, self-evident premise. I'd be curious what your starting premise is.

And can I assume that if rationality is the basis for deeming abortion as immoral, would it be moral to go back and abort Biden voters?

Well, like I said, deeming the killing of a rational being as wrong is the starting point, for me. The a priori; the premise; the first given.

Of course if we only stop there, we'd be left to conclude that any being that doesn't have rational thought at the moment is fair game. So two-year-olds, Biden voters, and cyclists would all be in perpetual open season.

But luckily the premise is only the starting point. To give a condensed version of the logic I think should flow from there, would go something like this:

• Start with the premise that killing a rational being is wrong.
• Also given as a premise must be that we desire a stable society for rational beings, one that will not devolve into chaos and suffering and ultimately destroy itself.
• Observe that homo sapiens is the only living species we know of that exhibits rational thinking.
• Observe that every homo sapiens will go through a phase of development where he has not yet attained the ability to think rationally, and some will go through such phases later on in life, some will enter a phase of irrationality that may last until death, and some may have mental handicaps that make it questionable as to whether or not they ever attain the full degree of human rationality
• Given how common it is to find examples of homo sapiens who do not have full rationality at this moment, we must conclude that if it is permissible to kill every such homo sapiens, society will devolve into chaos and suffering and ultimately destroy itself.
• Also, we must consider the trait of rationality as intrinsic to homo sapiens; it is something every member of the species has, by their nature, the potential to realize, even if some malady or something else restricts that potential.
• Given the two above points, we must define that is is wrong to kill a "person", and person must be given a definition that includes rational human beings, but also is broad enough, that when applied logically, it will not lead to gross violations of human sensibilities that will lead to destabilizing society
• All of the above, I believe, flow logically from each other. Now, we arrive at my main point of contention in this debate: The only definition of "person" that fulfills the criteria laid out in the previous point, is one that includes all living homo sapiens. This part in bold is something that I will admit does not come as an immediate, necessary logical conclusion from the prior bullet points. Rather, it is something proven by reduction. The evidence I offer for it is negative: I have not found any other definition of "person" that meets the necessary criteria. If someone can provide such a definition, that meets the criteria specified by the preceding bullet point, but without being a mere tautology logically excludes a newly conceived human, then that alone will be enough to disprove my current version of a secular argument for life at conception.

I'm sure you will have plenty of holes that you will attempt to poke in my version, but after that, I'm curious to hear all your answers to the crucial questions: What is your "a priori" premise, the thing that you can't really give a rationale for, but think should be taken as an agreed upon given, from which flows your concept that killing a human person is wrong? What is your definition of person? What makes killing animals okay, but not human persons?

 

[jamil]

In reading all this, please keep in mind that I use the word "rational" a lot. I am not using it in a strict sense; I am using it to refer to the unique ability that humans have for reason, self-awareness, etc, at the level that other animals lack.

I think we had a disconnect here somewhere.

I am asking if you could provide me with your definition of "person." Right now we've narrowed down our debate to whether/if/when a fetus meets the definition of the word "person", and so I'd like to first hear your definition of "person." I'm not asking for a definition that is specifically garnered towards the issue of abortion, I am asking for your definition, in general. If you were talking to aliens who had no idea about human culture, morals, etc, and they were asking you about your morals and you told them "I think the unjustified killing of a person is wrong" and they then ask "Okay, but what is a person?", how would you answer?

That's why I brought up the concept of a human being who has some sort of sensory issue that stops them from feeling pain. I'm not talking specifically about a fetus that couldn't ever feel pain, the hypothetical human could be an adult, a newborn, a child, whatever; that's irrelevant to the point. I'm sure they would still count as being a person to you. I get the feeling that pain is not something you would normally bring up at all in defining a "person", except that we're honed in on the abortion issue right now and you want to make sure that your definition carves out enough room that a fetus in the early stages of development won't fit. If I'm wrong about that, please provide me your general definition of "person" that demonstrates otherwise.

Thanks. I promise I'll do my best not to turn around and be too pedantic over definitions (though I may have already done that above.)

There are a couple additional logical steps needed to get to the conclusion, but ultimately, yes.

I think we may have arrived at my a priori point. I don't know that I really have a rationale for this, I think this is the starting point that I would like to begin at as our given; our first, self-evident premise. I'd be curious what your starting premise is.

Well, like I said, deeming the killing of a rational being as wrong is the starting point, for me. The a priori; the premise; the first given.

Of course if we only stop there, we'd be left to conclude that any being that doesn't have rational thought at the moment is fair game. So two-year-olds, Biden voters, and cyclists would all be in perpetual open season.

But luckily the premise is only the starting point. To give a condensed version of the logic I think should flow from there, would go something like this:

• Start with the premise that killing a rational being is wrong.
• Also given as a premise must be that we desire a stable society for rational beings, one that will not devolve into chaos and suffering and ultimately destroy itself.
• Observe that homo sapiens is the only living species we know of that exhibits rational thinking.
• Observe that every homo sapiens will go through a phase of development where he has not yet attained the ability to think rationally, and some will go through such phases later on in life, some will enter a phase of irrationality that may last until death, and some may have mental handicaps that make it questionable as to whether or not they ever attain the full degree of human rationality
• Given how common it is to find examples of homo sapiens who do not have full rationality at this moment, we must conclude that if it is permissible to kill every such homo sapiens, society will devolve into chaos and suffering and ultimately destroy itself.
• Also, we must consider the trait of rationality as intrinsic to homo sapiens; it is something every member of the species has, by their nature, the potential to realize, even if some malady or something else restricts that potential.
• Given the two above points, we must define that is is wrong to kill a "person", and person must be given a definition that includes rational human beings, but also is broad enough, that when applied logically, it will not lead to gross violations of human sensibilities that will lead to destabilizing society
• All of the above, I believe, flow logically from each other. Now, we arrive at my main point of contention in this debate: The only definition of "person" that fulfills the criteria laid out in the previous point, is one that includes all living homo sapiens. This part in bold is something that I will admit does not come as an immediate, necessary logical conclusion from the prior bullet points. Rather, it is something proven by reduction. The evidence I offer for it is negative: I have not found any other definition of "person" that meets the necessary criteria. If someone can provide such a definition, that meets the criteria specified by the preceding bullet point, but without being a mere tautology logically excludes a newly conceived human, then that alone will be enough to disprove my current version of a secular argument for life at conception.

I'm sure you will have plenty of holes that you will attempt to poke in my version, but after that, I'm curious to hear all your answers to the crucial questions: What is your "a priori" premise, the thing that you can't really give a rationale for, but think should be taken as an agreed upon given, from which flows your concept that killing a human person is wrong? What is your definition of person? What makes killing animals okay, but not human persons?

Okay, I'm gonna be busy all day and I don't know when I'll get to this. But here's my definition of a person in a general sense, for now.

It's not this:

View attachment 346712

but probably something closer to this:

View attachment 346713

I think, therefore I am.

"Person" is a fairly ambiguous term. But we think of a person to be of the type to think, reason, have a sense of self awareness, and I suppose even to have the capacity to think morally.

Also, I suppose I'm going to conceded that the ability to reason is reason enough to decide that it's less moral to kill humans than, say pigs, because otherwise it would be immoral to eat bacon. And we can't have that hanging on our conscience. And this is totally a biased opinion. We eat bacon, therefore we are.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I suppose even to have the capacity to think morally.

So leftists aren't people?

 

[jamil]

So leftists aren't people?

Correct.

 

[BE Mike]

View attachment 346712 View attachment 346713

I think visualizing this, you'd likely get more people on board that would view abortions at the stage in the image on the right, than on the left.

God knows us on the cellular level. Always have...always will. He also knows our souls, before and after all the cells are dead.

 

[jamil]

Well, "jamil said" that first sentence. Pretty sure jamil didn't write that last sentence.

 

[jamil]

In reading all this, please keep in mind that I use the word "rational" a lot. I am not using it in a strict sense; I am using it to refer to the unique ability that humans have for reason, self-awareness, etc, at the level that other animals lack.

I think we had a disconnect here somewhere.

I am asking if you could provide me with your definition of "person." Right now we've narrowed down our debate to whether/if/when a fetus meets the definition of the word "person", and so I'd like to first hear your definition of "person." I'm not asking for a definition that is specifically garnered towards the issue of abortion, I am asking for your definition, in general. If you were talking to aliens who had no idea about human culture, morals, etc, and they were asking you about your morals and you told them "I think the unjustified killing of a person is wrong" and they then ask "Okay, but what is a person?", how would you answer?

That's why I brought up the concept of a human being who has some sort of sensory issue that stops them from feeling pain. I'm not talking specifically about a fetus that couldn't ever feel pain, the hypothetical human could be an adult, a newborn, a child, whatever; that's irrelevant to the point. I'm sure they would still count as being a person to you. I get the feeling that pain is not something you would normally bring up at all in defining a "person", except that we're honed in on the abortion issue right now and you want to make sure that your definition carves out enough room that a fetus in the early stages of development won't fit. If I'm wrong about that, please provide me your general definition of "person" that demonstrates otherwise.

Thanks. I promise I'll do my best not to turn around and be too pedantic over definitions (though I may have already done that above.)

There are a couple additional logical steps needed to get to the conclusion, but ultimately, yes.

I think we may have arrived at my a priori point. I don't know that I really have a rationale for this, I think this is the starting point that I would like to begin at as our given; our first, self-evident premise. I'd be curious what your starting premise is.

Well, like I said, deeming the killing of a rational being as wrong is the starting point, for me. The a priori; the premise; the first given.

Of course if we only stop there, we'd be left to conclude that any being that doesn't have rational thought at the moment is fair game. So two-year-olds, Biden voters, and cyclists would all be in perpetual open season.

But luckily the premise is only the starting point. To give a condensed version of the logic I think should flow from there, would go something like this:

• Start with the premise that killing a rational being is wrong.

Why start with that premise? Psychopaths are very rational. They are unconvinced by emotional appeals. They just care about themselves and what suits them and rationally go after their pragmatic goals. It's not a moral violation to kill a psychopath as a sentence for a heinous crime.

• Also given as a premise must be that we desire a stable society for rational beings, one that will not devolve into chaos and suffering and ultimately destroy itself.
• Observe that homo sapiens is the only living species we know of that exhibits rational thinking.

Humans are the highest order of rational thinking, at least as far as we know. Other mammals, sea creatures, and such, display rational thinking. Dogs display rational thinking. Rational thinking is basing decisions on reason rather than emotion. My dog used to love getting treats out of those play toys where you stick the treat in and they have to figure out how to get it out. Throw the kong down the hall and he'd always jump up and go after it. Then as he got older, he'd jump up, look at it down the hall and stop. Look Look back at his bed. And decide, nah. Too much trouble. He obviously reasoned out the emotional part from the choices and decided that he had too many aches and pains to bother.

• Observe that every homo sapiens will go through a phase of development where he has not yet attained the ability to think rationally, and some will go through such phases later on in life, some will enter a phase of irrationality that may last until death, and some may have mental handicaps that make it questionable as to whether or not they ever attain the full degree of human rationality

This is why it's useful to think in terms of that they're of the type that has those characteristics. I think that is what you're saying here. My earlier point was that regardless of whether one is disabled, human fetuses are of the type that can feel pain during a certain stage. I think most humans believe it is immoral to intentionally put other humans in pain, and not only other humans. But cute little puppies. Don't you care about the little puppies?

• Given how common it is to find examples of homo sapiens who do not have full rationality at this moment, we must conclude that if it is permissible to kill every such homo sapiens, society will devolve into chaos and suffering and ultimately destroy itself.

This is one of the reasons it's hard to make the case that reason is why it's less moral to kill humans than less reasoning creatures. I mean, Joe ****ing Biden for crying out loud. I think evolution has an answer that's more reasonable, if you're trying to find a secular rationale for your position on abortion. Humans developed morality which tended to help procreate more than those without morality. And there are two facets to that. It's not just individuals that evolve, it's groups as well. That's why humans are both individualist and groupish. It's the mode that helped both be more successful in passing on their genes.
The group dynamic gives individuals a better chance at a longer lineage.

The other rationale, which is also reasonable, is that God made us, so it's immoral. But then that means it's not going to be believed by people who don't believe in god.

• Also, we must consider the trait of rationality as intrinsic to homo sapiens; it is something every member of the species has, by their nature, the potential to realize, even if some malady or something else restricts that potential.

It's okay to just say "human".

• Given the two above points, we must define that is is wrong to kill a "person", and person must be given a definition that includes rational human beings, but also is broad enough, that when applied logically, it will not lead to gross violations of human sensibilities that will lead to destabilizing society

I don't think the logical conclusion is that humans reason, therefore it is immoral to kill them. Does not follow. I think it's a better argument to say, we're human, humans are needed for propagation of the species, therefore it is immoral to kill us without good cause.

• All of the above, I believe, flow logically from each other. Now, we arrive at my main point of contention in this debate: The only definition of "person" that fulfills the criteria laid out in the previous point, is one that includes all living homo sapiens. This part in bold is something that I will admit does not come as an immediate, necessary logical conclusion from the prior bullet points. Rather, it is something proven by reduction. The evidence I offer for it is negative: I have not found any other definition of "person" that meets the necessary criteria. If someone can provide such a definition, that meets the criteria specified by the preceding bullet point, but without being a mere tautology logically excludes a newly conceived human, then that alone will be enough to disprove my current version of a secular argument for life at conception.

I think you really want to make the logic work. I'm not faulting you for that. But it's still a non-sequitur. And that's a problem inherent in moral reasoning. Why is it immoral to steal other people's stuff? It causes the owners of the stuff harm. That's not to say that a fertalized egg is done zero harm if one were to abort it. But take a look at those two photos I posted. There's a scale of harm where at the low end is what conception looks like. At the point of the second image from 12 weeks is a yet higher end, increasing all the way through birth. I think that's why you hear the other side argue about viability. And pushing emotional arguments aside, they have a point. I think you want to see it as a binary, where once conceived everything is exactly the same moral depravity up until the baby develops into a full fledged Joe Biden, and then we talk about longing for nature to put us out of his misery.

I'm sure you will have plenty of holes that you will attempt to poke in my version, but after that, I'm curious to hear all your answers to the crucial questions: What is your "a priori" premise, the thing that you can't really give a rationale for, but think should be taken as an agreed upon given, from which flows your concept that killing a human person is wrong? What is your definition of person? What makes killing animals okay, but not human persons?

Well, not attempt. Like I said, I think you leap from *is uniquely, inherently rational*, directly to therefore is objectively equally immoral to terminate throughout any any stage of living human, even at the point of conception. If I ask you to connect the dots, you can always come up with dots that sound plausible. So you're starting off with a conclusion, and then finding stuff that makes it true.

 

[BugI02]

This is why it's useful to think in terms of that they're of the type that has those characteristics. I think that is what you're saying here. My earlier point was that regardless of whether one is disabled, human fetuses are of the type that can feel pain during a certain stage. I think most humans believe it is immoral to intentionally put other humans in pain, and not only other humans. But cute little puppies. Don't you care about the little puppies?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Why start with that premise? Psychopaths are very rational. They are unconvinced by emotional appeals. They just care about themselves and what suits them and rationally go after their pragmatic goals. It's not a moral violation to kill a psychopath as a sentence for a heinous crime.

Okay, I was imprecise. I should have phrased the premise that the unjustified killing of a rational being is wrong. Well, even that's not really the starting premise. And again, let me keep trying to reiterate that "rational" as I'm using it here doesn't just meant the ability to analyze facts and come to conclusions, I mean that distinct property of humans, that combines, as you said, the highest order of rational thinking that we know of, together with a unique ability for communicating with and understanding each other, negotiating, forming agreements, planning for the future, using reasoning to make good decisions that are non-intuitive, and even conflict with our more basic instincts, when necessary, etc.

This unique ability is what I point to as the answer for "why is killing a human more immoral that any other animal?"

If you ask me "why?" I don't really have an answer. I think that recognizing this unique ability as an intrinsic good, is the starting premise. If you think you can drill down to something more basic and/or more specific to use as the premise, I'd love to hear it.

I think need to get this ironed out before we can really get into depth on the rest of the arguments I presented. We can't have a debate this technical without agreeing on some premise to start the conversation from.

Also, I think I need to come up with a better word than "rational." What's a good adjective that describes this ability I'm trying to point to?

 

[jamil]

Okay, I was imprecise. I should have phrased the premise that the unjustified killing of a rational being is wrong. Well, even that's not really the starting premise. And again, let me keep trying to reiterate that "rational" as I'm using it here doesn't just meant the ability to analyze facts and come to conclusions, I mean that distinct property of humans, that combines, as you said, the highest order of rational thinking that we know of, together with a unique ability for communicating with and understanding each other, negotiating, forming agreements, planning for the future, using reasoning to make good decisions that are non-intuitive, and even conflict with our more basic instincts, when necessary, etc.

This unique ability is what I point to as the answer for "why is killing a human more immoral that any other animal?"

If you ask me "why?" I don't really have an answer. I think that recognizing this unique ability as an intrinsic good, is the starting premise. If you think you can drill down to something more basic and/or more specific to use as the premise, I'd love to hear it.

I think need to get this ironed out before we can really get into depth on the rest of the arguments I presented. We can't have a debate this technical without agreeing on some premise to start the conversation from.

Also, I think I need to come up with a better word than "rational." What's a good adjective that describes this ability I'm trying to point to?

I think a good definition for rational, is based on reason/logic as opposed to emotion. So that definitely excludes Democrats. And maybe a few Republicans.

So of course we're talking about of the type that has the capacity for reason/logic, but realizing that we often, maybe even most often use emotion or instincts to made decisions, is that really the thing? I think you're trying to get at an ability that gives us all the capacities we have that can contribute goodness in the world. We're self-aware. We can reason. We can intuit. We can emote. We can be compassionate (maybe that's a better trait to hope for), we can be understanding, clever, and so on. Is it all good? We have some pretty ****ed up capacities too.

I'll just come out and say it, I don't think being of the type who can be rational is the thing that sets us apart from other species. Some research has shown that humans use their capacity for reason to confirm their worldview. And I think there is at least a little truth to that. We spend an awful lot of time trying to rationalize our biases.

Okay. so think about why you don't have a good answer for "why"? When you don't have a good answer to why, all the way down, that's perhaps an indicator that we either haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet, or maybe we're digging in the wrong place.

In terms of justifying the idea of using rationality or whatever it is you're trying to say, as the determining factor for why humans are at the threshold of the moral question, I think it implies the question, where is the threshold? Is it exactly at the human level of intelligence? Or is it the distance between us and the next down from us that makes us so worthy? If aliens were 1000 times better at whatever it is we're trying to define, are they as just as we are swatting a fly?

I think you do need to come up with a better word for it than rational. I think what you're getting at is what all is encompassed by saying humanity, but then you're getting into tautologies. You're defining the thing you need to justify.

Notice how many words I used to not really say anything. It's because I don't have any better answers than you do. Kinda why I think what we're talking about, if we're going to insist that this is a rational argument for being objectively moral, kinda needs some other framework besides rationality. You've heard my rationale for why I think abortion is morally wrong, but I have to admit I did not get there through rational thinking. I had the thoughts, then I tried to make reason of them. Nope. Just accept it.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I think a good definition for rational, is based on reason/logic as opposed to emotion. So that definitely excludes Democrats. And maybe a few Republicans.

So of course we're talking about of the type that has the capacity for reason/logic, but realizing that we often, maybe even most often use emotion or instincts to made decisions, is that really the thing? I think you're trying to get at an ability that gives us all the capacities we have that can contribute goodness in the world. We're self-aware. We can reason. We can intuit. We can emote. We can be compassionate (maybe that's a better trait to hope for), we can be understanding, clever, and so on. Is it all good? We have some pretty ****ed up capacities too.

I'll just come out and say it, I don't think being of the type who can be rational is the thing that sets us apart from other species. Some research has shown that humans use their capacity for reason to confirm their worldview. And I think there is at least a little truth to that. We spend an awful lot of time trying to rationalize our biases.

Okay. so think about why you don't have a good answer for "why"? When you don't have a good answer to why, all the way down, that's perhaps an indicator that we either haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet, or maybe we're digging in the wrong place.

In terms of justifying the idea of using rationality or whatever it is you're trying to say, as the determining factor for why humans are at the threshold of the moral question, I think it implies the question, where is the threshold? Is it exactly at the human level of intelligence? Or is it the distance between us and the next down from us that makes us so worthy? If aliens were 1000 times better at whatever it is we're trying to define, are they as just as we are swatting a fly?

I think you do need to come up with a better word for it than rational. I think what you're getting at is what all is encompassed by saying humanity, but then you're getting into tautologies. You're defining the thing you need to justify.

Notice how many words I used to not really say anything. It's because I don't have any better answers than you do. Kinda why I think what we're talking about, if we're going to insist that this is a rational argument for being objectively moral, kinda needs some other framework besides rationality. You've heard my rationale for why I think abortion is morally wrong, but I have to admit I did not get there through rational thinking. I had the thoughts, then I tried to make reason of them. Nope. Just accept it.

Well, there it is. I had a feeling we were eventually getting to this point.

It's funny that I spent so long trying to accept your challenge and provide a rational basis for "Life at Conception" without making reference to religion. And now that we've finally drilled down to the core of the matter, you've basically said it outright: that you're not really looking for a rational explanation; that you don't really believe in rational explanations at all. That to you, human rationality, when it comes to morals, is pretty much irrelevant, because it's just a facade; a tool that people use to justify their own preconceived notions. And no matter how many rational arguments I attempt to present, you're just going to swat them all down by claiming that I'm only rationalizing a preconceived notion.

There's not much I can say, then. I can't use logic to justify logic. I can't provide a rational reason for being rational. You either accept as a starting point that we have to agree upon certain premises, and then use logic to derive their conclusions, or there's no real basis for discussion, other than we each present our own feelings and hope that the other person starts feeling the same way I do.

 

[BugI02]

In before he comes back to tell you you don't understand what he 'meant' or mentions the Hegelian Dialectic

Edit: (Not directed at anyone in particular)
“We humans like to think we are creatures of reason. We aren't. The reality is that we make our decisions first and rationalize them later....Your illusion of being a rational person is supported by the fact that sometimes you do act rationally.”

― Scott Adams

 

[Twangbanger]

Well, there it is. I had a feeling we were eventually getting to this point.

It's funny that I spent so long trying to accept your challenge and provide a rational basis for "Life at Conception" without making reference to religion. And now that we've finally drilled down to the core of the matter, you've basically said it outright: that you're not really looking for a rational explanation; that you don't really believe in rational explanations at all. That to you, human rationality, when it comes to morals, is pretty much irrelevant, because it's just a facade; a tool that people use to justify their own preconceived notions. And no matter how many rational arguments I attempt to present, you're just going to swat them all down by claiming that I'm only rationalizing a preconceived notion.

There's not much I can say, then. I can't use logic to justify logic. I can't provide a rational reason for being rational. You either accept as a starting point that we have to agree upon certain premises, and then use logic to derive their conclusions, or there's no real basis for discussion, other than we each present our own feelings and hope that the other person starts feeling the same way I do.

This seems majorly evasive. I didn't get that he was rejecting reason "per se" as a means for deciding your position. He was asking you why puppies don't get the exact same precise legal rights as fertilized human zygotes. You responded, humans are rational beings and hence immoral to kill. He responded that in addition to feeling pain, puppies can reason on some level. I think he's trying to suss out how the mere _capacity_ for reason rationally leads to the life at conception position, without recourse to religion-based fixed value systems...and, without leading to animal rights.

Of course reason should be the guide. The question here is, "how" do you follow that guide without steering into a reductio-ad-absurdum "trap" that violates your fixed value system. Because I think we all want to eat cheeseburgers, and that involves terminating feeling, reasoning life.

Ultimately, the subject here is the necessary tension and conflict between "reason-based" and "fixed" value systems. It's the old Ayn Rand thing,again.

 

[jamil]

Well, there it is. I had a feeling we were eventually getting to this point.

It's funny that I spent so long trying to accept your challenge and provide a rational basis for "Life at Conception" without making reference to religion. And now that we've finally drilled down to the core of the matter, you've basically said it outright: that you're not really looking for a rational explanation; that you don't really believe in rational explanations at all. That to you, human rationality, when it comes to morals, is pretty much irrelevant, because it's just a facade; a tool that people use to justify their own preconceived notions. And no matter how many rational arguments I attempt to present, you're just going to swat them all down by claiming that I'm only rationalizing a preconceived notion.

There's not much I can say, then. I can't use logic to justify logic. I can't provide a rational reason for being rational. You either accept as a starting point that we have to agree upon certain premises, and then use logic to derive their conclusions, or there's no real basis for discussion, other than we each present our own feelings and hope that the other person starts feeling the same way I do.

I think you might have misunderstood. It's not that I'm not open to a rational explanation. It's that I'm to help you find one and I’m not doing any better. one. It's like I said. I don’t have any better answer than you, which is why this is probably in a subjective realm. Where you land on the topic is kinda dependent on your worldview.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

This seems majorly evasive. I didn't get that he was rejecting reason "per se" as a means for deciding your position. He was asking you why puppies don't get the exact same precise legal rights as fertilized human zygotes. You responded, humans are rational beings and hence immoral to kill. He responded that in addition to feeling pain, puppies can reason on some level. I think he's trying to suss out how the mere _capacity_ for reason rationally leads to the life at conception position, without recourse to religion-based fixed value systems...and, without leading to animal rights.

Of course reason should be the guide. The question here is, "how" do you follow that guide without steering into a reductio-ad-absurdum "trap" that violates your fixed value system. Because I think we all want to eat cheeseburgers, and that involves terminating feeling, reasoning life.

Ultimately, the subject here is the necessary tension and conflict between "reason-based" and "fixed" value systems. It's the old Ayn Rand thing,again.

I think you missed this part:

In reading all this, please keep in mind that I use the word "rational" a lot. I am not using it in a strict sense; I am using it to refer to the unique ability that humans have for reason, self-awareness, etc, at the level that other animals lack.

And this one:

And again, let me keep trying to reiterate that "rational" as I'm using it here doesn't just meant the ability to analyze facts and come to conclusions, I mean that distinct property of humans, that combines, as you said, the highest order of rational thinking that we know of, together with a unique ability for communicating with and understanding each other, negotiating, forming agreements, planning for the future, using reasoning to make good decisions that are non-intuitive, and even conflict with our more basic instincts, when necessary, etc.

So, no, I'm not talking about something that animals have too. If someone who is better versed in dictionary skills than me can point out a better word to use than "rational", I'm happy to use that word instead so we can move past this hang up. Maybe "sapient" is a better word?

And also, I do fully recognize that it's not a direct logical step from "Unjustified killing of sapient life is wrong" to "Killing a newly conceived zygote is wrong." That's why I laid out a few posts ago, as bullet points, the logical steps I take to get there. The reason I put defending those aside, for the moment, is that unless we can agree on the starting premise, there's no way to examine the logical arguments without just talking past each other.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I think you might have misunderstood. It's not that I'm not open to a rational explanation. It's that I'm to help you find one and I’m not doing any better. one. It's like I said. I don’t have any better answer than you, which is why this is probably in a subjective realm. Where you land on the topic is kinda dependent on your worldview.

What I mean is this:

I'm not aware of any system of logic that doesn't require starting from an agreed-upon premise that is taken as self-evident and doesn't need to be proven. You seem very insistent that you won't accept my starting point, no matter how I attempt to clarify my terms. You also seem to be saying that you have no other starting point to propose.

So I don't see where we go from here? The way I read your previous post it sounded like you were saying that you don't really believe in a logical argument on when/if it's moral to kill human beings, and that all apparent rational arguments are really just rationalizations. So when you close with "Nope. Just accept it.", I don't really see where the discussion can pick up.

 

[jamil]

What I mean is this:

I'm not aware of any system of logic that doesn't require starting from an agreed-upon premise that is taken as self-evident and doesn't need to be proven. You seem very insistent that you won't accept my starting point, no matter how I attempt to clarify my terms. You also seem to be saying that you have no other starting point to propose.

Correct. But I'd phrase it differently. You say I seem very insistent that I won't accept your starting point, no matter how you clarify what I'm saying. First, it seems to me you think it's unreasonable of me not to accept it at face value. Second, you think it must be because you haven't been clear enough, as if a clearer understanding of your position should make me agree with it. I think I understand it well enough.

If you're making a logical argument, the main premise is preferably something that is self-evident. Is it really self-evident that the thing that makes abortion immoral "from conception", is human reason, or whatever it is about humans that make them more special than other creatures?

So I don't see where we go from here? The way I read your previous post it sounded like you were saying that you don't really believe in a logical argument on when/if it's moral to kill human beings, and that all apparent rational arguments are really just rationalizations. So when you close with "Nope. Just accept it.", I don't really see where the discussion can pick up.

I believe unjustly killing people is immoral. Why? I think it's immoral to cause undue harm to people. Why people? Probably because I am one. Does that extend to at-conception? For me, yeah, because I think it's irresponsible to **** around, literally, with life. It's not self-evident to me, though, that means that "at conception" is the same as murder.

Now about where we go from here. I don't believe there is an argument for at-conception that doesn't depend on worldview. And especially religion. I think that's the reason why I don't accept that your "rational thinking" argument (understanding you see this as a placeholder) is self-evident, and you do. I suspect you believe: "...for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well." I don't see how a person who believes in a beneficent, loving Creator, could possibly not see your starting point as self-evident.

On the other hand, if we are evolved, then we are merely the apex of what has evolved. Does that fact make it self evident that this should make it more immoral to unjustly kill humans? It's not that we're apex. But wouldn't that be elitist of an evolutionist? The rationale for why it's immoral to harm humans compared to other creatures, is instinctive: self preservation.

So that's my explanation for why we both think of it differently. We have different worldviews on life and such. Even the origins of morality itself. I don't think that's disparaging for either of us. It's not that I stubbornly refuse to admit you're right. It's that our worldviews differ enough that we don't have a common basis to start from. What's self-evident to you is not self-evident to me. I'd have to change my worldview. it's not like a shirt that you can change. Your worldview has developed with you. Could you change yours so that you can agree with me? I'm not asking you to. I'm just talking about why we don't agree.

 

[DadSmith]

But rarely, approaching zero are abortions done because the mother’s life is in medical danger.

That is because of modern medicine, and we all need to be thankful we live in a society where saving the life of the mother and child can ve done.
I've heard of women giving their life so the child would live. Very sobering to read about.
A lot of wonderful mothers out there.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Correct. But I'd phrase it differently. You say I seem very insistent that I won't accept your starting point, no matter how you clarify what I'm saying. First, it seems to me you think it's unreasonable of me not to accept it at face value. Second, you think it must be because you haven't been clear enough, as if a clearer understanding of your position should make me agree with it. I think I understand it well enough.

If you're making a logical argument, the main premise is preferably something that is self-evident. Is it really self-evident that the thing that makes abortion immoral "from conception", is human reason, or whatever it is about humans that make them more special than other creatures?

Well, apparently I haven't been clear enough, because you keep misunderstanding my starting premise.

"Is it really self-evident that the thing that makes abortion immoral "from conception", is human reason, or whatever it is about humans that make them more special than other creatures?"

No, I'm not claiming "from conception" as my starting point. "From conception" is not the premise, but the opposite: the conclusion.

My actual premise (or, to be more precise, one of them) is that it is immoral to kill a creature that possesses this thing that I call "rationality/sapience." As you said, this special capacity of a fully developed human for reason, emotion, compassion, etc., is, from a purely materialistic perspective, the apex of evolution; the best thing the universe has yet produced that we know of. And to erase that is a bad thing. Remember, this is a very, very limited claim: I'm talking about the most clear-cut possible example: A fully developed, fully aware human being with his/her full mental powers intact. I want to use as a starting point that it is at least bad to kill, for no due reason, such a human, because that would destroy an instance of the highest form of consciousness/intelligence/emotion/reason, etc., that exists in the universe, that we know of.

That's what I'm asking you to take at face value. And if you say you can't take it at face value, that's fine, but then I would like to ask you to give me your own version of it. In other words, what your starting premise (NOT your conclusion) is for a discussion on the morality of killing humans. If you can't do either of those two things, then I think we lack a basis from which to frame a logical discussion.

I believe unjustly killing people is immoral. Why? I think it's immoral to cause undue harm to people. Why people? Probably because I am one. Does that extend to at-conception? For me, yeah, because I think it's irresponsible to **** around, literally, with life. It's not self-evident to me, though, that means that "at conception" is the same as murder.

Now about where we go from here. I don't believe there is an argument for at-conception that doesn't depend on worldview. And especially religion. I think that's the reason why I don't accept that your "rational thinking" argument (understanding you see this as a placeholder) is self-evident, and you do. I suspect you believe: "...for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well." I don't see how a person who believes in a beneficent, loving Creator, could possibly not see your starting point as self-evident.

On the other hand, if we are evolved, then we are merely the apex of what has evolved. Does that fact make it self evident that this should make it more immoral to unjustly kill humans? It's not that we're apex. But wouldn't that be elitist of an evolutionist? The rationale for why it's immoral to harm humans compared to other creatures, is instinctive: self preservation.

So that's my explanation for why we both think of it differently. We have different worldviews on life and such. Even the origins of morality itself. I don't think that's disparaging for either of us. It's not that I stubbornly refuse to admit you're right. It's that our worldviews differ enough that we don't have a common basis to start from. What's self-evident to you is not self-evident to me. I'd have to change my worldview. it's not like a shirt that you can change. Your worldview has developed with you. Could you change yours so that you can agree with me? I'm not asking you to. I'm just talking about why we don't agree.

Yes, we have different worldviews. I don't expect you to change your worldview to fit mine, at this point I'm just trying to disprove the false claim that the only possible way to rationally argue for "Life at Conception" is to start from a religious worldview.

 

[BugI02]

First, it seems to me you think it's unreasonable of me not to accept it at face value. Second, you think it must be because you haven't been clear enough, as if a clearer understanding of your position should make me agree with it.

What's instructive is that you can recognize this, but only in other people