"@Putin, if murder means unlawful killing, which I don't dispute, and then abortion is made illegal, abortion becomes murder, as it is illegal killing. Any logical fallacy I made?"

No, you are entirely correct. If abortion is designated as murder by law then it is murder. Just like attempts by pro-lifers to designate a miscarriage as 'manslaughter' would make it manslaughter.

But the larger point is these words add nothing of value to the discussion.

Hi semck:

Really, anything but the absolute hardline invites arbitrariness?

So soldiers commit murder in defense of their homeland? The state commits murder in executing a criminal? A woman commits murder if she shoots her attacker?

Most people find some or all of these ideas acceptable to a greater or lesser degree, but are they not also arbitrary then by your statement? No sir, I disagree. Murder is a subset of killing, and if making any one distinction is arbitrary, then they all are.

I feel this goes to the second point you make as well. What is "wrongful?" It's subjective, and highly dependent on context and individual morality.



Re malice:

Thanks :)

@Cyrus, sorry I was actually answering your previous question, not your question to Putin.

What guides my morality? A number of factors, I suppose.... *shrug* doesn't matter. What matters is that it's equally valid to your own.

@YJ,

"Really, anything but the absolute hardline invites arbitrariness?"

Oh goodness, not at all. I was only talking about abortion. (Reread what I said).

In the cases you cited, there are many well-reasoned and long-discussed analyses as to why the particular type of killing is not wrong. On the other hand, as I understand you, you're saying we should just skip all that in the case of abortion. You are left with an arbitrary line between murder and justifiable killing.

"What guides my morality? A number of factors, I suppose.... *shrug* doesn't matter. What matters is that it's equally valid to your own. "

You can't really believe your morality is equally valid to his. That would mean that his was equally valid to yours, yet that would make you a hypocrite: you think he is wrong to try to impose his beliefs about killing fetuses on others through law, yet you have no qualms imposing your beliefs about the wrongness of killing adults on others through law.

@Putin It certainly would make a difference if it was murder, as many people guide their morality, at least partly, on law.

@YJ semck makes a good point. Do you accept any moral absolutes? Is it wrong that I would want to legalize murder, if I thought it was right?

@semck:

Apologies if I misunderstood - but I feel your statement invites the comparison.

Wait, skip all that? Are there not well reasoning and long discussed analyses as to why abortion is not wrong? Now, you don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been hashed out at great length, with well founded arguments on both sides. There are many who believe war is murder, execution is murder, (meat is murder!) and their reasoning is sound, and in no way arbitrary *so long as you understand their moral context* We might not always agree with them, but that's the nature of the beast morality.

Which segues into your second point. I have a somewhat Darwinian take on morality, so yes, I do believe that all moralities are equally valid. They might be abhorrent, but they are valid. Morality is, in a very real sense, the ultimate in arbitrary. Whether your morality is instilled by a higher power, or the teachings of your parents, or your society, how are we to know which morality is superior except that it is the morality that survives?

@cyrus

Semck always makes good points :)

I don't believe in moral absolutes that I can think of. I have some pretty strong feelings on some issues, but I'm hard pressed to say there is no circumstance under which it might be acceptable to do something I might think immoral at a first guess.

Moral absolutism leads to stagnation. Whatever your moral compass, you must acknowledge that it has changed from the one handed down by your grandparents. Whatever a society's moral compass, you must acknowledge that it evolves over time.

"@Putin It certainly would make a difference if it was murder, as many people guide their morality, at least partly, on law."

Yes, but we're trying to figure out what the policy should be and simply calling something murder for the sake of it is no help in this regard. Yes, I understand that the pro-life movement wishes to outlaw abortion and miscarriage, and a whole host of medical services aside from abortion. Calling these procedures criminal doesn't do anything to that end, or justify why they should be designated as criminal.

The whole point is to explain why you think abortion ought to be considered murder, not simply call it such as a rhetorical device. I have yet to hear a good argument as to why outlawing abortion and precluding women from medical services would enhance health outcomes, or why diminishing health outcomes would make for a good policy. I have yet to hear a good argument as to why your personal morality should factor into the access others get to medical treatments they require, and how this would lead to good policy outcomes. I have yet to hear a single answer to the question about late-term non-viable pregnancies, and what should be done about them and how to deal with this problem while also dealing with the proscription of abortion that pro-lifers want.

None of these are explained, by the way, by simply asserting the wish that something be a crime, i.e. by calling abortion murder.

This is a complicated policy issue and this kind of rhetoric has no place in it. Unfortunately the pro-life movement has taken to terror and intimidation rather than rationality, which is seen by there actions across the USA and their stated agenda.

@YJ If in a specific case, could there be moral absolutes? Example, was the Holocaust, in all its details, morally, absolutely, wrong?

"You can't really believe your morality is equally valid to his. That would mean that his was equally valid to yours, yet that would make you a hypocrite: you think he is wrong to try to impose his beliefs about killing fetuses on others through law, yet you have no qualms imposing your beliefs about the wrongness of killing adults on others through law."

It would not make him a hypocrite. Viewing morality as likes/dislikes has a long-standing philosophical foundation in the analytical tradition. It's called emotivism. Two people have different sets of preferences, YJ hopes for his to prevail in society, Cyrus hopes for his to prevail. Cyrus isn't "wrong" so much as YJ dislikes his preferences.

My morality finds it disgusting. In fact I find it so repellent that I cannot conceive of a moral compass that would allow such a thing. I know that isn't the answer you want.

So no, I don't find it absolutely wrong. After all, a sizable portion of the world ascribed to this morality. In addition, genocide and xenophobia are common aspects of many other moralities - the only thing that sets the holocaust aside is the scale of the horror.

@Putin I think if you will ask any pro-lifer, their answer will be that abortion is wrong because it kills a human baby. And as far as I know, I have never heard that the pro-life movement wants to outlaw miscarriages. And as far as I know, the only other "medical services" that they want to have outlawed is euthanasia. Correct me if I am wrong.

Why it would be wrong is because pro-lifers believe that a baby is a human person. As this is the more traditional belief, I believe the onus would be on the pro-choicers to prove that it is not an alive human being at that stage. As to "denying medical services to women," is a woman allowed to do anything that will better her health? And pregnancy does not usually result in death in the 21st century, at least not in the West. So is it merely a matter of choice? Should someone be responsible for their actions?

@YJ,

"Wait, skip all that? Are there not well reasoning and long discussed analyses as to why abortion is not wrong? Now, you don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been hashed out at great length, with well founded arguments on both sides."

OK, but most of them deal with why the fetus is not a person in some morally relevant sense. You just threw all that overboard on the last page, so I think that leaves you without any of those arguments -- unless I'm missing something.

Re: Morality. OK, but then aren't you being hypocritical, as I said? (And isn't hypocrisy wrong in your moral system?)

Putin you're hitting it on the head tonight :) Exactly.

@YJ In that case, is it "wrong" for someone to go against their moral compass?

The hang up here is that absolutists believe everybody who doesn't agree with them has to suffer some kind of judgment, i.e. being "wrong", whereas this is not necessarily the case for alternative systems of morality. Being wrong is an important designation for absolutism. I don't see how helpful or illuminating it is though. It's about as helpful as someone saying they dislike the color red or enjoy horror movies.

@Putin,

I thought that not long ago, you were defending objective morality yourself. Have you changed your mind?

@semck ahh I see. I think that the "fetuses are not human" are a significant part of the arguments being presented for the pro-choice stance, but they are hardly the only ones.

As far as hypocritical - no. Some moral preferences trump others. This is true for all moralities. In a perfect world, every woman would have perfect control of her own reproductive system, and the question of abortion need never rise. Sadly, we do not live in this perfect world, and there is nothing hypocritical with my claim that, for me, the right to choose trumps the right to life, while at the same time claiming that my right to life trumps somebody else's desire to kill me, and desiring the protection of law in both cases.

@kingCyrus: I'm not sure what your asking. You could just as easily phrase that as, "is it wrong to do something wrong?" Morality defines right and wrong, so by definition the answer to your question is yes.

However, maybe the results of that decision would turn out for the best, and my own morality would shift accordingly?

Damn you semck for joining this conversation at bed time.

@YJ,

I wasn't clear with the hypocrisy question, sorry. I meant to suggest you are hypocritical if you believe (in your moral system) that pro-lifers are wrong to fight for the criminilization of abortion.

But maybe you never say that. Maybe you actually applaud them as morally convicted exemplars of democracy, while asserting that you have different preferences than they.

Also @YJ,

' I think that the "fetuses are not human" are a significant part of the arguments being presented for the pro-choice stance, but they are hardly the only ones. '

What are some arguments for the morality of abortion that do not rely on fetuses being morally less important beings?

semck... again, since we have conflicting morals, of course I find them "wrong." Their morality is outdated and won't survive long. Most civilized countries have already given up on it.

But I don't "blame" them for pushing their agenda. You can't blame a snake for being a snake :) I would rather have this moral conflict than be allowed to declare, triumphantly, that my morality is the best there ever will be and the universe must adhere to it from this day forward. That would be... horrifying.

@YJ, if you "cannot conceive of a moral compass that would allow such a thing", and it is in fact wrong to go against your moral compass, does this not mean that you can believe that it is a moral absolute, as there is no alternative that you are able to conceive?

"What are some arguments for the morality of abortion that do not rely on fetuses being morally less important beings?"

Ahh, well you did the old bait and switch there, semck old chum. Fetuses must be, to me, morally "less important than something else." They must be, to justify abortion. What I said is that I don't rely on them being non-human to make my case.

And to answer your inevitable riposte:

1) financial burden on an unready parent
2) a right to choose what goes on in your own body
3) wholly dependent on a woman's body
4) rape/drug babies
5) babies with high risks of birth defects
6) health risks for the mother


- that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more.

@kingcyrus:

Of course not. I'm not so arrogant as to presume that anything beyond my comprehension must be wrong. I expect that 500 years from now the prevailing morality will be quite alien to me indeed. In fact, I truly hope it is.

So now you are putting a value on human life? And that value is "mommy can't afford it so she cam kill it". Weren't you the one slamming me for saying something similar in the case of mad murderers and serial killers?

@YJ

May I return your arguments?

1) Does this mean that a mother or father can kill a 5 year old child if money gets tight?
2) Since you already named exceptions in #4, you DID choose what happened in your body, now you have to deal with those consequences. Just as if you choose to smoke, you accept that you may get lung cancer, you have to deal with the repercussions of your actions.
3) So what sort of things would this include?
4) Adoption? Granted you have to deal with it for 9 months, but IF it is a human person, which you say doesn't matter, than is killing that person for convenience sake OK?
5) And how many of those defects pan out? I know people very close whose doctors told them they had 0% chance of survival, and it would be best if they got abortion, and they are perfectly healthy today.
6) I believe this sort of repeats #4

"@Putin I think if you will ask any pro-lifer, their answer will be that abortion is wrong because it kills a human baby."

That doesn't really answer the questions I asked. When asked what makes good policy especially in complicated cases like non-viable fetuses all I'm given is moral judgment. That's not helpful at all.

"And as far as I know, I have never heard that the pro-life movement wants to outlaw miscarriages"

http://wreg.com/2013/05/23/ms-supreme-court-considering-mothers-criminal-responsibility-for-stillbirths-and-miscarriages/

Mississippi isn't the only state to try this.

"And as far as I know, the only other "medical services" that they want to have outlawed is euthanasia. "

They also want to ban prenatal testing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/santorum-stands-by-prenatal-screening-opposition/

They also oppose HPV vaccinations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/michele-bachmann-hpv-vacc_n_1094840.html

Pro-life movement opposes intra-uterine devices and other forms of contraception.

http://www.prolife.com/birthcnt.html

They oppose access to papsmears and breast cancer screenings (in the name of fighting Planned Parenthood of course)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/03/christian-right-opposes-pap-smears-and-breast-exams/

I could go on but I think the point is made. In the name of opposing abortion, the pro-life movement has opposed virtually every aspect of women's healthcare.

"Why it would be wrong is because pro-lifers believe that a baby is a human person. As this is the more traditional belief, I believe the onus would be on the pro-choicers to prove that it is not an alive human being at that stage. "

I've asked many times why it being human matters, all I've gotten is crickets chirping. Non-viable fetuses are human. What are women supposed to under your rules? The onus is not on pro-choicers because pro-choicers don't have to accept the premise of your question. Is something being alive the only factor we have to take into account? That's a simplistic and dangerous way to make policy in this case. Non-viable fetuses are 'alive' technically, but they have no hope of surviving outside the womb. So again, what is to be done under a society that proscribes any and all abortion?

" As to "denying medical services to women," is a woman allowed to do anything that will better her health?"

Yes, actually. The onus is on you and the pro-life movement to explain why women shouldn't prioritize the betterment of their own health.

"And pregnancy does not usually result in death in the 21st century, at least not in the West."

Maternal mortality has gone up, not down in the USA, from 8.6 deaths per 100,000 in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 in 2006. 68,000 women nearly died from childbirth in 2004-2005. Each year more than 1.7 million suffer some kind of complication that has an adverse effect on their health as a result of pregnancy.

The glibness with which the pro-life movement dismisses these concerns is what makes their policy goals so dangerous.