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

Homicidal_Cherry53 · Post by **Homicidal_Cherry53** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:29 am

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?

Defender of Truth · Post by **Defender of Truth** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:59 pm

theAtheistofnoIllusions wrote:I can condemn whoever for whatever I please.

You're right! You can condemn! But your condemnation can't be greater than "I don't like it". Because they didn't break any law! (According to you). When you condemn someone you're saying they broke the moral or legal law.

Homicidal_Cherry53 · Post by **Homicidal_Cherry53** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:10 pm

Defender of Truth wrote:
theAtheistofnoIllusions wrote:I can condemn whoever for whatever I please.
You're right! You can condemn! But your condemnation can't be greater than "I don't like it". Because they didn't break any law! (According to you). When you condemn someone you're saying they broke the moral or legal law.

Hitler clearly broke legal laws (I would be very surprised if there was no litigation involving murder in Germany during his reign) so he can be condemned upon legal grounds. Morality is subjective, but he very clearly broke the law and could therefore be punished because of that. Now, laws may be somewhat subjective in and of themselves, but some order has to be established in order for civilization to exist.

theAtheistofnoIllusions · Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:32 pm

kayky wrote: A fetus is both alive and human in the sense it possesses human DNA. But a fetus in the early months of a pregnancy is not a person and does not have the rights afforded to personhood.

And what is the difference between a human fetus and you? Size? Dependence? So a man in space has no right to live, because he cannot survive on his own? The infant has no right to live because it is smaller than you, in a different stage of development?

Perhaps you believe that the difference between the fetus and the adult is the lack or possession of a soul? So at what point does the fetus gain this soul and thus, possessing a soul, win its right to life? Why not conception? Isn't that the only moment when the human does not yet possess its complete DNA, cannot truly be called human life? At what point does the baby get its soul and at what point is killing it murder?

You see, it's state of existence is irrelevant. The true decision lies in the desires of whoever has control of its life. If someone with the power to kill it does not want it, than it shall die. If they choose to give it personhood, than it shall live. Stop arguing the meaningless concepts of Good and Evil that you are falsely applying to the situation.

Defender of Truth wrote:You're right! You can condemn! But your condemnation can't be greater than "I don't like it". Because they didn't break any law! (According to you). When you condemn someone you're saying they broke the moral or legal law.

I said that there is no moral law to break and that they had broken the law (written by society) by murdering. Wether I condemn them or not, and to what extent I decide to punish them if condemned, depends on who they murder.

Homicidal_Cherry53 wrote:Morality is subjective, but he very clearly broke the law and could therefore be punished because of that. Now, laws may be somewhat subjective in and of themselves, but some order has to be established in order for civilization to exist.

Subjective morality is a meaningless concept. Morality is either absolute and so is relevant, or does not exist and therefore is irrelevant. The laws of man are equally meaningless insofar as one realizes that breaking them has consequences. Hitler realized that man's law has no authority if God's law does not exist and rolled the dice. He was an imbecile for believing that he could win a war with that philosophy, but "deserves" punishment as much as you or me.

You are correct in saying that law is necessary for humanity to exist. That is why I wonder at the anti-theists and their desire to rid the world of the only thing that keeps most people believing in the law.

Homicidal_Cherry53 · Post by **Homicidal_Cherry53** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:22 am

theAtheistofnoIllusions wrote: Subjective morality is a meaningless concept. Morality is either absolute and so is relevant, or does not exist and therefore is irrelevant. The laws of man are equally meaningless insofar as one realizes that breaking them has consequences. Hitler realized that man's law has no authority if God's law does not exist and rolled the dice. He was an imbecile for believing that he could win a war with that philosophy, but "deserves" punishment as much as you or me.

Morality being subjective does not point to a lack of existence, it merely points to an infinite number of equally valid (and frequently contradictory) moral perspectives. The fact that one is not absolute does not make morality irrelevant, as the moral perspectives of a society is hugely important in determining the way that society behaves. Especially when an individual or society holds the belief that their moral perspective is absolute, morality is the opposite of irrelevant because it holds a great deal of sway over our behavior.

As for Hitler, he was born into a social contract and was taught his entire life that ignoring the laws of that contract result in punishment. Murder was a capital offense in mid-20th century Europe and Hitler knew this. I never said he "deserved" punishment (he did from my perspective), but he broke the social contract, and should therefore be punished in the same way that someone who walks off a cliff should fall.

You are correct in saying that law is necessary for humanity to exist. That is why I wonder at the anti-theists and their desire to rid the world of the only thing that keeps most people believing in the law.

In order for people to lose faith in law, they would have to realize that morality is subjective and that is something that will not be caused by the absence of religion. This is demonstrated by the fact that over 5% of the forum are atheist and only 10 have identified themselves as moral relativists. That alone should be enough to disprove any correlation between atheism and moral relativism.

I don't think I have ever heard an atheist use the word "anti-theist", nor does it sound like you are in fact an atheist. I apologize if I am mistaken, but this looks like someone trying to demonstrate that believing in God is not only important but necessary to the survival of civilization. Few atheists try to make such a point, as they would probably not be atheists if they believed it.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:08 pm

kayky wrote: A fetus is both alive and human in the sense it possesses human DNA. But a fetus in the early months of a pregnancy is not a person and does not have the rights afforded to personhood.

theAthiestofnoIllusions wrote:And what is the difference between a human fetus and you? Size? Dependence? So a man in space has no right to live, because he cannot survive on his own? The infant has no right to live because it is smaller than you, in a different stage of development?

A first trimester fetus has no developed consciousness. It does not think; it does not dream; it does not experience emotions. It has none of the qualities that define personhood. The first trimester fetus has no civil rights whatsoever.

theAthiestofnoIllusions wrote:Perhaps you believe that the difference between the fetus and the adult is the lack or possession of a soul? So at what point does the fetus gain this soul and thus, possessing a soul, win its right to life? Why not conception? Isn't that the only moment when the human does not yet possess its complete DNA, cannot truly be called human life? At what point does the baby get its soul and at what point is killing it murder?

I can't tell you anything about the "soul," but conception can take place in a petri dish. Does this embryo have civil rights? A fetus that survives past the first trimester has limited rights. The mother's rights still supercede.

theAthiestofnoIllusions wrote:You see, it's state of existence is irrelevant. The true decision lies in the desires of whoever has control of its life. If someone with the power to kill it does not want it, than it shall die. If they choose to give it personhood, than it shall live. Stop arguing the meaningless concepts of Good and Evil that you are falsely applying to the situation.

When did I even mention good and evil?? How can I stop something I never started??

theAtheistofnoIllusions · Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:58 pm

Morality is relevant in it's effects on people's behaviors, but I was speaking of it's authority over me. What I was getting at is that morality is a meaningless concept. If there an infinite number of conflicting but equally valid moral points of view, than what is the point in even discussing morals? Morality is a description of good and evil, and what constitutes either one. If Good and Evil are based purely on what is perceived to be helpful to me and what is perceived to be harmful to me than they are utterly meaningless concepts. If one rejects absolute morality, an equal morality that applies to everyone and is known by everyone, then one instantly rejects any question of "should". Whether Hitler should be punished or shouldn't be is irrelevant. He declared war on the world and the world crushed him. Social contracts had nothing to do with it, and it is amusing that you would assume the laws of man are always so consistent as the laws of gravity.

Any person who speaks in the terms of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, cannot honestly call himself an atheist. What constant does he base this constant morality on? What authority does his perception of a situation have over me? In what ways are his opinions higher than mine? No, I think those you speak of are theists in denial, expressing schizophrenic anger at their "God".

The belief in god is important insomuch that it is a very useful tool at keeping man from killing other men. If a man believes, truly believes in a moral authority higher than himself, he will instantly have more respect for the laws of society. He has a stake in being "good". The illusion of a Judge keeps him in line, to a certain extent, and prevents him from causing too much trouble. Religions usefulness is undeniable, but you are incorrect in assuming that it's usefulness in controlling men has anything to do with its truthfulness. One can recognize the benefits of a thing without embracing it.

kayky wrote:A first trimester fetus has no developed consciousness. It does not think; it does not dream; it does not experience emotions. It has none of the qualities that define personhood. The first trimester fetus has no civil rights whatsoever.

Prove to me that you experience, think and dream. Prove to me that the fetus does not. And why should those suddenly give the thing personhood? Do you believe that the ant does not experience? If experience is all that is required for personhood than you have opened the door to most of the animal kingdom. The truth which you seem unwilling to accept is that "personhood" is irrelevant in the discussion. Even if someone could prove that it was a thinking person, it's life has no more inherent value because of this. It's fate is still not within its own power to defend and its value is still only that with which it is assigned. It lacks the ability to stake its own claim on anything, and so the responsibility falls to the mother. If the mother chooses to claim nothing, then the child has no rights. Civil rights are more irrelevancies. At one time the fetus did have civil rights, and it could easily have them again if the government chose to grant them. You don't understand, I am not trying to condemn abortion, I am proving the lack of necessity for its justification. There is no point when the fetus gains personhood until it is able to take it for its own and defend it against any who would deprive it of it. One could make all the laws one wants, but those laws are utterly meaningless if the citizens reject them.

The action doesn't require justification. It's justification is that it was done. Morals and "rights" had nothing to do with it.

Grumpy · Post by **Grumpy** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:37 pm

theAtheistofnoIllusions

Any person who speaks in the terms of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, cannot honestly call himself an atheist. What constant does he base this constant morality on? What authority does his perception of a situation have over me? In what ways are his opinions higher than mine? No, I think those you speak of are theists in denial, expressing schizophrenic anger at their "God".

You are talking about a sociopath, not an atheist. Atheists have "morals", ethics, etc. but they are based on reason and developed from first principles(Do unto others...), not handed down from on high by some mythical father figure. We have these ethics in order to be able to live together in a society. It IS a social contract of mutual respect for our rights and you would not like the consequences to you if everyone ignored these rules as you suggest.

Grumpy

theAtheistofnoIllusions · Sun Jul 26, 2009 6:38 pm

I have never claimed to desire a change in anyone's faith, or for any man to ignore the vestigial illusions of his upbringing. I am well aware of the consequences if every person believed as I do, and so am slightly relieved that so few hold a position like mine. That so few have cast of their illusions and cling still to the idea that morals mean anything is comforting, for it means that for a while at least I will live in a relatively ordered society, enjoying the benefits of man's utter refusal to accept his lot.

I am not arguing that society's rules are not logical and wise and necessary for a functioning state. I am rejecting any kind of claim that these laws have authority over me in any way if I choose to ignore them. I am rejecting the claim that morals have any meaning if based on one's "reason" or opinion of the world. I accept that individuals who uphold the law will respond to trespasses, but also accept that this is their only claim on me. Those who can, and will, force me to submit to the laws of society have no more moral authority over me than I have over them.

The sociopath is always an atheist. It has been argued that the reverse is also true.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:08 pm

kayky wrote:A first trimester fetus has no developed consciousness. It does not think; it does not dream; it does not experience emotions. It has none of the qualities that define personhood. The first trimester fetus has no civil rights whatsoever.

AthiestofNoIllusions wrote:Prove to me that you experience, think and dream. Prove to me that the fetus does not. And why should those suddenly give the thing personhood?

These things have already been proven through scientific studies of human brain development.

AthiestofNoIllusions wrote:Do you believe that the ant does not experience? If experience is all that is required for personhood than you have opened the door to most of the animal kingdom.

The human being is the only creature on this planet with a self-reflective consciousness.

AthiestofNoIllusions wrote:The truth which you seem unwilling to accept is that "personhood" is irrelevant in the discussion. Even if someone could prove that it was a thinking person, it's life has no more inherent value because of this. It's fate is still not within its own power to defend and its value is still only that with which it is assigned. It lacks the ability to stake its own claim on anything, and so the responsibility falls to the mother. If the mother chooses to claim nothing, then the child has no rights. Civil rights are more irrelevancies. At one time the fetus did have civil rights, and it could easily have them again if the government chose to grant them. You don't understand, I am not trying to condemn abortion, I am proving the lack of necessity for its justification. There is no point when the fetus gains personhood until it is able to take it for its own and defend it against any who would deprive it of it. One could make all the laws one wants, but those laws are utterly meaningless if the citizens reject them.

I don't accept this "truth" you speak of because it is NOT the truth. This is because of one constant in the universe: that constant is love. It is the basis of our connection to God, and it is the basis of our morality.

AthiestofNoIllusions wrote:The action doesn't require justification. It's justification is that it was done. Morals and "rights" had nothing to do with it.

You are the one creating a world of illusions. To what end?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:02 pm

theAtheistofnoIllusions wrote:I have never claimed to desire a change in anyone's faith, or for any man to ignore the vestigial illusions of his upbringing. I am well aware of the consequences if every person believed as I do, and so am slightly relieved that so few hold a position like mine. That so few have cast of their illusions and cling still to the idea that morals mean anything is comforting, for it means that for a while at least I will live in a relatively ordered society, enjoying the benefits of man's utter refusal to accept his lot.

I am not arguing that society's rules are not logical and wise and necessary for a functioning state. I am rejecting any kind of claim that these laws have authority over me in any way if I choose to ignore them. I am rejecting the claim that morals have any meaning if based on one's "reason" or opinion of the world. I accept that individuals who uphold the law will respond to trespasses, but also accept that this is their only claim on me. Those who can, and will, force me to submit to the laws of society have no more moral authority over me than I have over them.

The sociopath is always an atheist. It has been argued that the reverse is also true.

I challenge you to prove that 'the sociopath is always an atheist'. I am sure that those people, such as andrea yates, are not atheists.