>>"I'm attempting to answer the question of whether an abortion is moral. (This is a question you brought up)
And no, nothing you've said on that subject particularly indicates that you understand the philosophy of morality. Sorry. (I never attempted to convince you of that, it's your subject. You're welcome to expound on the philosophy of morality, but I have no idea why you think I need to show you my understanding of that subject. Maybe I'm dumb (I don't claim to be a genius), but perhaps you could explain to not ony me, but to other readers, what you're getting at).
You believe humanity begins at conception. I'm not convinced. Give me a moral reason to treat a zygote, or even a 20-week-old fetus, as a human being. So far you have yet to even try."<<
You're telling me that you're attempting to answer whether abortion is moral, but in the same post asking me to give you a moral reason? All while accusing me of not understanding what moral philosophy is...
If your going to give vague references to the "philosophy of morality", but not define what you're talking about to those who read this thread, it's kind of pointless to try to play that game.
If you arbitrarily choose when human life begins, it's really you who should be able to give a moral reason as to why human life begins at any other point than those factual events I've outlined. If you're going to base your own moral decision on something, perhaps you should show a good reason and be willing to share it.
If you're looking for an "ought to" here, my position is clear: We "ought" to not kill human babies without justification because of the following reasons:
1. A fetus is a living thing.
2. The kind of DNA it has identifies what kind of living thing it is.
3. The specific DNA signature it has identifies its own uniqueness from other living things. (If you take a sample of the baby's DNA, it won't be the mother's).
4. No other event after conception changes the type of being it is.
We "ought" to consider the fetus a human being for all of those reasons (and more). Any other point along the process of development that is chosen is completely arbitrary. We "ought" to give the benefit of the doubt and not kill based on arbitrary definitions of what constitutes a human being, but based on the facts we actually do know. The moral reason for treating a zygote or fetus as a human being is by virtue of them being human beings and nothing else. It's the same reason you have human rights. You have human rights by virtue of being a human being. The zygote/fetus derive their rights in exactly the same way. Human beings deserve human rights by virtue of what kind of being they are - not by where they live, what their capabilities are, at what stage of developement they are - none of those things. What is it that gives you human rights?
If you would like to share your philosophical expertise, please do. I mean that sincerely. I'm open to understanding whatever point you're trying to make, but you don't seem to want to share it. If you're not willing to share it and you would rather play intellectual games about the philosophy of morals, knock yourself out.
You can categorize and ignore the points I brought up all you want. I'm not going to demand that you "do your homework" about something I know something about - I'm just sharing observations. The original thread talked about "GOP psychos". I'm attempting, among other things to illustrate why something like government funding of planned parenthood matters to pro-life people and that the logical arguments against the practice of killing innocent humans make the protection of those humans a very important issue. I understand the pro-choice position. It is logical, only if we don't consider the fetus a human being.
There is merit to both sides of the abortion argument. Neither side argues from the same premise and it's the premise that is most important...IMO anyway.
(Edited for grammar)
4/14/2011 1:47 PM (edited)