You seem to have the idea that the argument I present reflects my personal views....Whilst I might make the statement that "This idea that abortion is wrong is a human construct", in that statement I am saying nothing about my view... You have assumed too much and arrived at an incorrect conclusion.
btw, regardless of my morals, you can still present an argument. If you have a good/strong argument, maybe you will convert me.
When I say that "Abortion is a physical action with no inherent rightness/wrongness" I am talking in the natural sense. Nature does not care. To say that something is right/wrong is to impose meaning. We impose a meaning either that we figure out for ourselves or that we have been taught. If we are all taught that murder is wrong (as we (hopefully) have been taught), then we will see murder as wrong. But possibly not, if we have not been taught that and have not figured it out for ourselves. Our sense of right/wrong exists in the brain/mind, not in the person being murdered and not in the act itself.
Hi Thresh #146, Your non-zygote references/analogies are irrelevant as I have previously said. If you define personhood as a Lowest Common Denominator exercise and include all stages from zygote to death, then the zygote is included. But this is circular.
And it means that the most powerful arguments (that relate to sentience) cannot be included. No matter how much you object that this is the reason or deny it, it is obvious. So I ask this hypothetical - if the zygote was sentient, do you really think that you would omit reference to sentience in the anti-abortion argument?
You argue "right to life". But as with rightness/wrongness, that is another human construct. There is no natural consequence of an abortion, other than that the aborted does not have life byeond that point. From the perspective of nature, there is no right/wrong and no right to life.
Your building demolition is about sentient people with awareness and expectations and so on. The analogy is about uncertainty, but the consequences in your analogy are substantially greater than for a zygote - it has no sentience, no awareness, no expectations. So the significance of the uncertainty is greatly different in your analogy, so it is a poor analogy. Rather than "the unborn are not humans with rights", you are an advocate of anti-abortion so you have to show that "the unborn are humans with rights". You might assert this, but you have not established it. The natural/default position is that there are no rights, because rights exist in a person's brain/mind.
You state " The abortion lobby has failed to provide strong evidence that the unborn do not have a right to life". But "The anti-abortion lobby has failed to provide any evidence that the unborn do have a right to life". This is because there is no such evidence - because this "right" is a human construct. This so-called "right" is not a part of nature - unless you call human ideas/constructs part of nature, that is.
So I ask this hypothetical - if nobody at all believed that there were human rights, would human rights exist? If yes, why? rgds, igr.
btw, what you call "the abortion lobby" is a gross mis-representation - it is "the non-anti-abortion lobby". (if it was "the abortion lobby", it would call itself "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice")
Thresh, I'm confused. On the one hand, igr seems to believe that to be a person, a human being needs to live outside the womb. That's why I wonder whether I was was only half a person when only my top half had left it. On the other hand, igr seems to think that it's not morally right for anyone to impose beliefs about morality on anyone else. But it seems inconsistent for a moral nihilist to say that there's anything that anyone morally should not do.
Hi THresh #151, You seem to have entirely missed my point about sentience. This does not relate to a definition of personhood. If a zygote was sentient, I would expect the anti-abortion lobby to use that as its most powerful argument against abortion. I would certainly do that if I was in the anti-abortion lobby and the zygote was sentient.
And relative to that argument, all other arguments used by the anti-abortion lobby are significantly less important. So on that basis, the arguments currently used by the anti-abortion lobby are significantly weaker than they would be if the zygote was sentient.
For the purposes of this hypothetical, assume the zygote is sentient ==>> Compare "you can't abort a zygote for the reason that I say it is a person" with "you can't abort a zygote for the reason that it is a sentient human". Which do you think is the stronger statement? Does this make it more clear?
So please answer this question ==>> in your view, where do our morals come from? thanks again, rgds, igr.
So do you think it is "morally right for anyone to impose beliefs about morality on anyone else"? If so, whose moral beliefs? And why that person's morals? rgds, igr.
So I ask a hypothetical - if nobody at all believed that abortion was wrong, would abortion still be wrong? If yes, why?
If it is your view that morals "come from a law giver with authority over all humans", you are not stating that as fact/actuality. So because you realise that there are many/varied beliefs amongst the people of this world, you will also realise that there are many who do not share your belief. I do not believe that there is "a law giver with authority over all humans", so to me that claim has zero value. So I do not believe that morals "come from a law giver with authority over all humans"
So where does your law giver specify that a zygote is a person? Where does your law giver specify the definition of a person? I am not aware of anywhere that this has been done, so I need to know this from you. thanks, rgds, igr.
Some of these people should take a hard look at their mind. Did you or did you not rationalize God away because you just wanted to have non-marital sex or watch porn? Did you or did you not rationalize God away because you didn't want to put in the time to mature morally or you don't like all the rules that come with religion? Was it a lust for power or in order to be able to treat people as inferior beings in good conscience?
Hi Bill #152, Just to clarify/repeat, "my view - which is that late-term abortions are wrong". So maybe this would mean that I am not a moral nihilist? And in any case, there are many other matters/issues that involve morals on which I have not expressed my views, so any conclusion about my morals based solely on my comments in this abortion discussion may be incorrect. As for when one is called a person, it is just a name/label which in and of itself has zero significance. If we deleted the word "person" (and personhood), that would make precisely no difference to this discussion.So do you think it is "morally right for anyone to impose beliefs about morality on anyone else"? If so, whose moral beliefs? And why that person's morals? rgds, igr.