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?

[Lioba]

Parasite - 1) an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. 2) a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others

Definition 1 isn't applicable because a fetus belongs to the same species as the mother.
Definition 2 isn't applicable because the natural destination of a fetus is to become a person that passes on the genetic heritage of its ancestors and in most cases their cultural heritage too. The next generation cares for the parental generation, enables the preservation and further development of the former generations material and spiritual gains, guaranties the duration of the species and so on and so on. Sounds not at all like " parasite".
O- another thing: a parasite takes advantage of the hosts physical and mental condition, but those conditions are not especially made to please the parasite.
Contrarily- a healthy hosts body does everything to get rid of a parasite and the latter can only survive by making an advantage of the hosts weaknesses.
In contrast to that, great parts of mammals bodies are especially formed for reproductional use and fertility is an indicator for the strengh and health both of the species and the individual.

[scourge99]

I know how to use the quote system. I choose not to. I will address this post to you, hope that helps with the confusion.

I ask because when you respond to different parts of my post in one giant blob I can't easily sort out what parts of my post you are responding to. This often leads to arguments going in circles. The discussion cannot progress well without established tangents.

I don't "decide" what is "right" or "wrong". I do what I want and if that helps me, good. If it hurts you, don't care.

And you are 100% entitled to do such. No one can stop you from thinking or having desires. But that doesn't make you right from our perspective and it doesn't mean we can't punish you if we collectively find your behavior "bad" and have the power to impose consequences. We don't have to have some supreme moral authority to do such.

Right and wrong are what makes me feel good.

And if that is your choice so be it. But if you expect to live in a society with others who uphold the law then you will face the consequences for violating those laws.

Tell me, how are you any different?

I'm not. I just happen to have morals that mostly align with most of my society.

If Good and Evil are subjective, than they have no meaning and are not even worth the effort to say them.

I have no problem with not using good and evil. I think they are simple abstract concepts that are fairly useless. That doesn't mean I don't think I can classify things as Good or Bad though from my perspective.

What use will you have? You say its right, I say its wrong? Who's right? Both of us? Neither one?

??????? Once again you use subjective statements but FAIL to qualify it with a perspective. You are right from your perspective. I am right from my perspective. So TADAH! Two contradictory statements exist! But you seem to want to know which one is right based on some omniscient perspective. There is no way to answer thatunless you are omniscient.

How can two contradictory ideas be true at the same time?

True from whose perspective????? You are right from your perspective. I am right from my perspective. That is not impossible! That doesn't violate any rules of logic or physics or anything.

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

Prove it.

Go look at Iraq or Somalia if you need an example of what happens when law and order breaks down. I think its so self-evident that law and order makes societies more productive its absurd to disagree. What do you think would happen if there was not some type of collective or centralized force and system for keeping people from murdering, stealing, destroying, etc?

So you can't comprehend that a person, for whatever reason, can find certain actions unacceptable? And that two or more people may agree on those things?

Never said that. I said that a person finding a thing to be unacceptable to them only means that they do not like that thing. If someone agrees with you, than you are both saying: "We don't like that." My question to you is: why should I have to pay any attention to what you don't like?

Because if you plan on interacting with me or anyone else within a society then its in your best interests. people live in societies and tend not to live in solitary confinement for a reason. You might want to ask yourself why.

WRONG again. I believe some things are right and other things wrong and other things "meh". Such is called my SUBJECTIVE MORALITY.

Actually, if wrong and right are subjective: I am right.

ONLY from your perspective. Do you not think other conscious beings exist such as myself and that we don't have our own subjective perspective? If you do then you must admit that we must also think we are right.

Well a lot of poeple THINK about what is right and wrong before hand and train ourselves to not react counter to it.

And? So what is "right" now becomes "whatever I happen to like at this particular moment;

Right from whose perspective???? I can knowingly do things that i don't think are right or perhaps I react instinctively and believe what i did was wrong in retrospect. Having subjective morals doesn't mean one necessarily follows them.

Just because you have "trained" yourself not to react to it, does not mean that you won't or can't.

I never said people won't or can't. I fail to see how that somehow refutes any of what I have being saying.

I want you to find a group of African Americans, get em all together, and tell them that the slavery is right, as long as you believe it is.

Then get them Jews, and repeat.

You seem to be confused about the definition of "right". You should look it up.

And if I honestly believed that then I would be RIGHT from my perspective. That doesn't make it right from other people's perspective and it doesn't make it TRUTH from an omniscient perspective.

What you are saying with your definition: altruism - consciously doing something for others or the perceived common good without wanting to do something for others or the perceived common good.

No. This is not what I said. This is what I said:

Altruism is the practice of selfless concern for the well-being of others.

If I save a person from a fire just so that I can get that ten bucks he owes me back, that is not altruism. If I don't think about the ten bucks and with no regard to myself dive in to save him, that is altruism.

how about someone who runs into a fire to save someone because he feels like its the right thing to do from his perspective. Someone he doesn't know and expects no reward from. You don't think that happens has ever happened or is possible?

I most definitely believe in free-will. At least, I believe in free-will for myself. I have never seen any proof that anyone else has it.

What? How do you only have freewill and no one else does?

Especially not a squirrel. I can pretty much tell you with 100% certainty that squirrels don't have free-will, and therefore cannot act altruistically.

I meant post the dictionary from which you are getting the definition (which I don't totally disagree with)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

[ConfinedIX]

Definition 1 isn't applicable because a fetus belongs to the same species as the mother.
Definition 2 isn't applicable because the natural destination of a fetus is to become a person that passes on the genetic heritage of its ancestors and in most cases their cultural heritage too. The next generation cares for the parental generation, enables the preservation and further development of the former generations material and spiritual gains, guaranties the duration of the species and so on and so on. Sounds not at all like " parasite".
O- another thing: a parasite takes advantage of the hosts physical and mental condition, but those conditions are not especially made to please the parasite.
Contrarily- a healthy hosts body does everything to get rid of a parasite and the latter can only survive by making an advantage of the hosts weaknesses.
In contrast to that, great parts of mammals bodies are especially formed for reproductional use and fertility is an indicator for the strengh and health both of the species and the individual.

Leech - a person who clings to another for personal gain, esp. without giving anything in return, and usually with the implication or effect of exhausting the others resources; parasite.

A fetus gives nothing in return to the host, uses the host's body for personal gain, and exhausts the host. So, maybe I was mistaken to call a fetus a parasite. A leech sounds more feasible.

[Lioba]

No, confidenix, if you say leech instead of parasite, the same arguments I gave in my last posting can be used against this.
Look, I understand you insofar as I admit that a woman might feeel as if it were so, but that doesn´t mean it really is.
The point is that we speak in a debate in a generalizing way, it´s all about definitions and general rules. Under this aspect offspring is in no way a parasite or a leech. Why then can an individual feel like that.
Spontanously I see those possible scenarios.
1. The woman is mentally or physically not able to raise a child and see the gain of it for herself and mankind.
If I would cruelly apply the same measures on this woman as some doe on fetusses, guess what consequences that would have? Well, I don´t, I do not reduce a woman to her fertitlity and her biological usefulness.
2. A second type of woman does not care for the future, for the duration neither of her ancestry nor human heritages in general. She is not willing to pass on what was given to her. She is alive. she was begotten and born- obviously by a mother who was to weak or to stupid to get rid of the leech-, she was raised and educated.
So what, she has taken, she surely will not give on for the price to have less fun or ruin her model-like-shaped body.Looks more like a parasite than the fetus.
3 A woman lives in a society that doesn´t value fertility- or especially hers. Maybe because the situation is so bad that it is hard or almost impossible to raise children, in that case it can be useful to have birthcontrol by avoiding pregnancy.
Maybe the woman is a social outcast and no one cares for her although the society could afford to maintain her and the little one.
Or a society as awhole is so degenerated that it isn´t ready to pay the small price of raising children to have a future.
In all this cases we clearly would leave the gebating ground of this thread and come to the socio- economic aspects of a pregnancy.
But as we are here debating the biological side, i must stay by my first answer.
Even if a mother might feel as if a fetus is a leech or parasite, it clearly is not.

[ConfinedIX]

I am not saying that offspring are bad and I am not implying that a fetus doesn't deserve the chance to be brought into this world.

However, I am saying that a fetus is a leech and I have explained it using my common knowledge about pregnancy and I think a fetus can be classified as a leech. Personally it makes sense to me, but then again I am a bit off and fall far from the family tree.

Haben Sie einen netten tag. I hope that is right. Forgot most of the German I learned >_>

[Lioba]

Ich wünsche auch Ihnen eine schönen Tag. German is not so easy to learn and if you have no constant possibility to use it it´s normal that you forget a lot.
About the family tree- when I was younger I saw it much the same way you do. But now that I get older I see more likeness to my folks than I´ve ever would have expected.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Laws are different than morals. And please, Grumpy, you have got to go look up what "sociopath" means. Psycopathy would be closer and I can assure you that I am not insane and have no personality disorder. A rabid dog has no control, I do. There is the difference.

A more accurate comparison of me would be the morals of a lion. I will do what I want, and if this hurts or helps you, deal with it. A rabid dog would simply attack because it is diseased, whereas I am cowardly. I won't attack unless I have good reason and am assured that I will not experience any reactions from my prey.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

And you are 100% entitled to do such. No one can stop you from thinking or having desires. But that doesn't make you right from our perspective and it doesn't mean we can't punish you if we collectively find your behavior "bad" and have the power to impose consequences. We don't have to have some supreme moral authority to do such.

I never said you couldn't. I said that you would be sick and immoral for punishing me, as would any who have helped you. What right do you have over me? None but that you are stronger. You are no more moral than I.

Once again you use subjective statements but FAIL to qualify it with a perspective. You are right from your perspective. I am right from my perspective. So TADAH! Two contradictory statements exist! But you seem to want to know which one is right based on some omniscient perspective. There is no way to answer that unless you are omniscient.

So the sun is green? And birds crap gold? I can fly with candy flavored wings?

And all I have to do is change my perspective?!?!?!! Wow. I'm so glad that there is NO evidence for an objective reality! I mean, I'm really glad that I have never gotten a math question wrong, or expected somehting that didn't happen, believed an untruth, cause you know, that would imply objective reality not based on my perspective, but that NEVER happened so I guess you're right. All subjective.

Good to know. *rolls eyes*

True from whose perspective????? You are right from your perspective. I am right from my perspective. That is not impossible! That doesn't violate any rules of logic or physics or anything.

Yes it does. You are ignoring the definition of "right". That is a logical fallacy.

Like I said: if reality is based on perspective, than how have I ever been wrong? Why wasn't reality based on my perspective then? Why did my perspective change as a reaction to my reality and not the other way around? You keep saying "perspective" "subjective" but you STILL haven't shown me WHY you believe that reality itself is subjective. What evidence for this statement do you have?

What do you think would happen if there was not some type of collective or centralized force and system for keeping people from murdering, stealing, destroying, etc?

Don't know and guess what? That has nothing to do with the original claim. I said nothing about law and order or government. I asked you to prove to me that a society MUST be "moral" to be efficient.

You don't think that happens has ever happened or is possible?

No squirrel ever did thats for damn sure.

What? How do you only have freewill and no one else does?

Stop misrepresenting me. I've been putting up with it until now but it's getting old. I said that I have seen no proof that other creatures I deal with have free will. As far as I know, you could just be another part of me, acting out of my sub-conscious or whatever.

"the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others"

from your posted source. Thsi suggests that my definition is correct.

[scourge99]

And you are 100% entitled to do such. No one can stop you from thinking or having desires. But that doesn't make you right from our perspective and it doesn't mean we can't punish you if we collectively find your behavior "bad" and have the power to impose consequences. We don't have to have some supreme moral authority to do such.

I never said you couldn't. I said that you would be sick and immoral for punishing me, as would any who have helped you.

From whose perspective???? Obviously yours. Why is your perspective the only valid perspective in a society that has more people than just you?

What right do you have over me? None but that you are stronger. You are no more moral than I.

I don't claim I am stronger personally. I claim society is. You CHOOSE to live in this society and by doing such you are subject to their laws whether you like them or not. If you don't want to live in the society then move elsewhere. Go live in the wilderness where you will likely never be subjected to the cumulative morals or the morals of those in power. But I hardly doubt you would want to sacrifice all the benefits granted to you by living in this society.

Once again you use subjective statements but FAIL to qualify it with a perspective. You are right from your perspective. I am right from my perspective. So TADAH! Two contradictory statements exist! But you seem to want to know which one is right based on some omniscient perspective. There is no way to answer that unless you are omniscient.

So the sun is green? And birds crap gold? I can fly with candy flavored wings?

Holy moving goal posts batman! We went from discussing abstract subjective beliefs (morality) to comparisons of objective empirical evidence (bird poop, the sun, and wings)? You've got a lot of explaining to do to connect the dots on those before I can begin to tackle your question.

And all I have to do is change my perspective?!?!?!! Wow. I'm so glad that there is NO evidence for an objective reality!

When did I say there wasn't objective reality? How does the existence of subjective moral beliefs disprove objective physical reality?

I mean, I'm really glad that I have never gotten a math question wrong, or expected somehting that didn't happen, believed an untruth, cause you know, that would imply objective reality not based on my perspective, but that NEVER happened so I guess you're right. All subjective.

The fallacy you have committed is known as a hasty generalization. The fact that morality may be subjective does not necessarily mean everything in reality is subjective. You seem to think it does.

True from whose perspective????? You are right from your perspective. I am right from my perspective. That is not impossible! That doesn't violate any rules of logic or physics or anything.

Yes it does. You are ignoring the definition of "right". That is a logical fallacy.

What logical fallacy am I falling into? Please explain specifically. Also, Please give me your definition of "right" and demonstrate how its wrong in the way I use it. Please keep in mind we are talking about "right" in the context of what is morally "right".

Like I said: if reality is based on perspective, than how have I ever been wrong?

You are right from your perspective. I am right from my perspective. You may be morally right, morally wrong, or orally neutral from some other person's perspective.

Why wasn't reality based on my perspective then?

What? Your perspective of reality is based on your limited experiences and mine is based on mine. Do you deny that other people have a different and possibly valid perspective than you?

Why did my perspective change as a reaction to my reality and not the other way around? You keep saying "perspective" "subjective" but you STILL haven't shown me WHY you believe that reality itself is subjective. What evidence for this statement do you have?

I don't believe physical reality is subjective. I can bring any physical object to someone and we can both discuss it using our senses. However, I believe morals are subjective. I can't bring my morals to you and show them because morals are conceptual. I can however discuss why or why not I find something moral. However we are finite beings and not omniscient so until I provide my reasoning to you and my experiences that lead me to that conclusion to you then its possible you disagree. Hence, you may have differing morals than I. I.E., we have subjective morals.

What do you think would happen if there was not some type of collective or centralized force and system for keeping people from murdering, stealing, destroying, etc?

Don't know and guess what? That has nothing to do with the original claim. I said nothing about law and order or government. I asked you to prove to me that a society MUST be "moral" to be efficient.

I never said a society must be "moral" to be efficient . Please re-read what I did write:
Your question: "What use is morality if it is subjective and therefore changes at the whim of the one who is holding it?"

My answer: "Because societies are more efficient with mutual understanding of right and wrong."

Where you got this notion that societies must be "moral" I have no idea. I don't even know what your statement means because you once again fail to specify from whose perspective the society is moral from.

You don't think that happens has ever happened or is possible?

No squirrel ever did thats for damn sure.

Once again you don't have a point just a red-herring. Please try answering the question or making a point: how about someone who runs into a fire to save someone because he feels like its the right thing to do from his perspective. Someone he doesn't know and expects no reward from. You don't think that happens has ever happened or is possible?

"the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others"

from your posted source. This suggests that my definition is correct.

If someone runs into a fire to save someone because he feels like its the right thing to do from his perspective. Someone he doesn't know and expects no reward from others. how does that not satisfy the definition?
There are couple ways to demonstrate this:

1) Explain how the act is a selfish concern.
2) Explain how the act disregards the welfare of others.

[Lioba]

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