Ethical Subjectivism and the Pro-Choice Movement

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

What else could the zygote be? An ape?

It's a human.

It's only the potential for human life up to a certain point, in many people's opinions. Just like sperm is the potential for human life. But a lot of that gets... used... without thinking about the potential lives we're killing with that tissue...

Oh dear.

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

It's only the potential for human life up to a certain point, in many people's opinions. Just like sperm is the potential for human life. But a lot of that gets... used... without thinking about the potential lives we're killing with that tissue...

Oh dear.

Left alone, sperm cells will not separate or turn into a human being.

Left alone, a fertilized egg cell will separate and turn into a human being.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

How do you distinguish a separate human entity?

that's the million dollar question chief. i don't have the answer.

the troubling extension of your views is that it could potentially make mothers slaves of the state. should we jail mothers who smoke or drink? fine the ones that don't go to regular doctor's visits? place them on lockdown in case they walk around too much and endanger the baby's life? should they have to leave their jobs once the state deems they are too pregnant and endangering the child's welfare? there are a lot of things we could label child abuse... if she has sex too late in the pregnancy is the man now labelled a pedophilic sex offender for exposing himself to a minor? should women who have miscarriages be charged for negligent homicide or manslaughter. after all, if they'd taken better care, perhaps the baby would still be alive.

on the flipside, i find the line between fetus and living baby to be weirdly arbitrary and unconvincing. in this sense, i don't see how you can say "now it's a baby, now it isnt." it's why im basically on the fence about the abortion. there are hard questions and serious implications that neither side considers. in the end, i don't think there's really an answer to any of these questions. which is why i think it should be decided locally to reflect the values and beliefs of the people of that locale.

CorporateWhore

soulsinging wrote:

that's the million dollar question chief. i don't have the answer.

Luckily science has helped separate woman and child earlier and earlier in the pregnancy, proving that the child CAN live independent of its mother. Makes you wonder just how far they'll go? Should abortion really be legal if the child can live independent of its mother? If that is possible, what does that say about the cruelty of abortion? A lot.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

Luckily science has helped separate woman and child earlier and earlier in the pregnancy, proving that the child CAN live independent of its mother. Makes you wonder just how far they'll go? Should abortion really be legal if the child can live independent of its mother? If that is possible, what does that say about the cruelty of abortion? A lot.

i take it you didnt read the rest of my post.

Cosmo

Well... I'm one of those people who is Pro-Choice...
Note: CHOICE, not abortion.
I believe it is the person's CHOICE to make... not mine, not yours and not our government to make for them. I don't like abortion and would hope that she... **Note: SHE** makes the choice to go an alternate path.
As long as abortion remains a legal option open to her... the choice is HERS to make.

CorporateWhore

Cosmo wrote:

Well... I'm one of those people who is Pro-Choice...
Note: CHOICE, not abortion.
I believe it is the person's CHOICE to make... not mine, not yours and not our government to make for them. I don't like abortion and would hope that she... **Note: SHE** makes the choice to go an alternate path.
As long as abortion remains a legal option open to her... the choice is HERS to make.

I know this is the way you feel but this doesn't address anything about ethical subjectivism. It just states it, which doesn't say much because ethical subjectivism is already proven as a lousy way to make ethical judgments.

The rightness of her decision has nothing to do with the fact that she is making it. This is your central problem.

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

I know this is the way you feel but this doesn't address anything about ethical subjectivism. It just states it, which doesn't say much because ethical subjectivism is already proven as a lousy way to make ethical judgments.

You keep saying "proven lousy/false" but I have yet to see you prove anything. Well, other than you penchant for absolutes - of which there are very few, comparatively.

Cosmo

CorporateWhore wrote:

I know this is the way you feel but this doesn't address anything about ethical subjectivism. It just states it, which doesn't say much because ethical subjectivism is already proven as a lousy way to make ethical judgments.

The rightness of her decision has nothing to do with the fact that she is making it. This is your central problem.

...
Why is it MY problem? Unless I was the one who got her pregnant... what makes it MY business?
SHE is left with a tough decision. If I were her, I would hope that I would CHOOSE adoption or something other than abortion. In that case, I would be left with an Ethical Decision to make. And that decision would be MINE to make, not yours. I would be the one to decise the legal options open to me.
Just because I do not believe abortion is the best choice for her to make... it does not mean I have any power to force her (or anyone else) to do as I believe.
How does HER predicament... affect MY ethics?

CorporateWhore

Cosmo wrote:

How does HER predicament... affect MY ethics?

It doesn't affect your ethics, it affects the unborn child's life.

Cosmo

CorporateWhore wrote:

It doesn't affect your ethics, it affects the unborn child's life.

...
And my decision to force her to abide by my choosing affects her already born life.
...
I don't want other people who believe their ethics are better than mine to limit my choice of legal options. Like, I reallly don't care for gambling or chain smoking or lame ass colored Martinis... but, there's no way I'm expecting others to abide by my direction. Those choices are theirs to make.

CorporateWhore

Cosmo wrote:

...
And my decision to force her to abide by my choosing affects her already born life.
...
I don't want other people who believe their ethics are better than mine to limit my choice of legal options. Like, I reallly don't care for gambling or chain smoking or lame ass colored Martinis... but, there's no way I'm expecting others to abide by my direction. Those choices are theirs to make.

The vast majority of the time, the woman won't die if she chooses to have the child. The only thing it affects is her pocketbook.

Apparently the woman's pocketbook matters more to you.

ZepZach

Theres a little bit more to raising a child then just a hit in your "pocketbook".

Cosmo

CorporateWhore wrote:

The vast majority of the time, the woman won't die if she chooses to have the child. The only thing it affects is her pocketbook.

Apparently the woman's pocketbook matters more to you.

...
You need to get off of that track.
I am not saying she SHOULD get an abortion. I'm saying it is NOT my decision to make. Actually, if I were the one who makes all of the choices for everyone... i would make them all choose the alternative to getting pregnant in the first place... and I would also hold the MEN responsible for their part.
I'm not and have NEVER advocated abortion. I advocate CHOICE. Abortion is currently a legal option that is open to her. She has to make the tough ethical decision. She doesn't need me screaming into her ear through a bullhorn to tell her which choice to make.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

The vast majority of the time, the woman won't die if she chooses to have the child. The only thing it affects is her pocketbook.

Apparently the woman's pocketbook matters more to you.

Where did he say anything about preferring the woman have an abortion the vast majority of the time? He said he'd prefer it if the woman had the child - the outlook shared by most pro-choice people, I think - but doesn't think he's within his rights to impose his personal beliefs on anyone else.

Ahnimus

By what objective truth is the Nazi killing of a Jew immoral?

Don't flame me with libelous "anti-semite" horseshit.

You made the point already. The difference is ideology which is subjective and hence morality is subjective. There are objective correlates to morality within the human and animal brains, however these typically only work with in-group members. So unless we embrace the world and all life as our own in-group, we will always morally justify the killing of another.

But I'm sure you can think of many reasons not to include Nazis and Hitler as your in-group and thus justify killing them.

Cosmo

Ahnimus wrote:

By what objective truth is the Nazi killing of a Jew immoral?

Don't flame me with libelous "anti-semite" horseshit.

You made the point already. The difference is ideology which is subjective and hence morality is subjective. There are objective correlates to morality within the human and animal brains, however these typically only work with in-group members. So unless we embrace the world and all life as our own in-group, we will always morally justify the killing of another.

But I'm sure you can think of many reasons not to include Nazis and Hitler as your in-group and thus justify killing them.

...
Add: Would it be moral for a Jew to kill a Nazi?
...
The whole 'morality' thing comes into play with how the Nazi, the Jew and the American view killing. The object in the analogy is the act of killing.

CorporateWhore

Ahnimus wrote:

By what objective truth is the Nazi killing of a Jew immoral?

Don't flame me with libelous "anti-semite" horseshit.

You made the point already. The difference is ideology which is subjective and hence morality is subjective. There are objective correlates to morality within the human and animal brains, however these typically only work with in-group members. So unless we embrace the world and all life as our own in-group, we will always morally justify the killing of another.

But I'm sure you can think of many reasons not to include Nazis and Hitler as your in-group and thus justify killing them.

The fact that you need to delve that deeply into the example means your ethical beliefs are pathetically shallow.

Ahnimus

CorporateWhore wrote:

The fact that you need to delve that deeply into the example means your ethical beliefs are pathetically shallow.

Deeply shallow?

Ahnimus

Cosmo wrote:

...
Add: Would it be moral for a Jew to kill a Nazi?
...
The whole 'morality' thing comes into play with how the Nazi, the Jew and the American view killing. The object in the analogy is the act of killing.

I had that thought "Would it be moral for a Jew to kill a Nazi?" I think many would answer "Yes".