The rights of consenting sex and child support

[MrNlul77]

You could say a 1 year old baby has no capacity for growth on its own as well. It will need the mothers milk or someone to feed it. A 1 y/o cant just grow up on its own. 

You keep saying the woman owns her own body but she is the one who did an activity that created another life.

I believe ending life because of your own faults is immoral

 

You could say whatever you like but, Clearly when the baby is born its no longer part of the woman's body.

 

As far as I can tell, you believe that if a women has sex she gives up the right to abort the pregnancy, she gave up ownership over her own body in consenting to sex and should be force to continue with the pregnancy?

 

Is it your opinion that all abortions are immoral? Or is it a question of avoidability.?

 

From your position, Would aborting a pregnancy on medical grounds be immoral?, even if the medical complications are a direct result of the woman's actions.

[dsayers]

You're begging the question what makes a fetus not a child. It is dependent like a child.

If by LIKE a child, you mean they are both incapable of surviving left to their own faculties, then yes. Otherwise, the ways in which they are dependent are different. Humans don't breath liquids for example, whereas a human fetus does.

 

You're also suggesting giving birth is a moral choice.

Show me where. When you consider that birthing is an involuntary biological process and choice is a requisite of moral consideration, I don't see how I could've ever suggested as much.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

If by LIKE a child, you mean they are both incapable of surviving left to their own faculties, then yes. Otherwise, the ways in which they are dependent are different. Humans don't breath liquids for example, whereas a human fetus does.

 

Show me where. When you consider that birthing is an involuntary biological process and choice is a requisite of moral consideration, I don't see how I could've ever suggested as much.

 

You may not have suggested such. Sorry if I was wrong when I claimed you did. I'm going to reflect a bit more before responding, but thanks for your counter arguments they were helpful.

[Boss]

You could say whatever you like but, Clearly when the baby is born its no longer part of the woman's body.

 

As far as I can tell, you believe that if a women has sex she gives up the right to abort the pregnancy, she gave up ownership over her own body in consenting to sex and should be force to continue with the pregnancy?

 

Is it your opinion that all abortions are immoral? Or is it a question of avoidability.?

 

From your position, Would aborting a pregnancy on medical grounds be immoral?, even if the medical complications are a direct result of the woman's actions.

When the woman involved herself in an action that involves another life. Ending that life is immoral.

 

As far as medical complications which are less than 1% of abortion, the intention would be to save both lives. If the baby dies it wouldnt have been murder thus not immoral. 

 

We will just have to disagree. I dont see murder justifiable just because "its her body" especially when her body took action that now involves another life. 

 

[dsayers]

When the woman involved herself in an action that involves another life. Ending that life is immoral.

"Life" is not sufficient for being a moral actor. All animals and plants are alive, but we do not say that somebody that walks on grass is guilty of assault. 

[Boss]

"Life" is not sufficient for being a moral actor. All animals and plants are alive, but we do not say that somebody that walks on grass is guilty of assault. 

If you didnt get what I meant I probably shouldnt even be responding. Obviously I am referring to the life in the womb every non-suicidal human benefited from the mother not choosing murder.

[Natalia]

In my opinion, a ball of cells/embryo (upto a certain point) is not a "life". 

 

 

The reality is that the fetus is part of the woman's body, drawing upon her resources not unlike her own foot, or an internal parasite. 

 

 

The issue is specifically about the property rights of a persons own body, whether people should be able to violate a womans body or not.

 

"in my world" any contract that signs themself into slavery is invalid.

 

 

I have already put forth the argument that the zygote/embryo/fetus is the woman's property as it is part of her body which is her property. If you find flaw in this claim, please address it.

 

 

The woman owns her own body, the zygote/embryo/foetus has no capacity for growth on its own, it's part of the woman's body, she has the freedom of choice over her own body, That's all I'm saying.

 

Shall we stop hijacking scientific words and creating our own utterly arbitrary definitions of them?

 

As someone else pointed out not long ago, life is defined as “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” As far as my humble self is aware, the only beings whose condition as life or not is mildly controversial are the viruses. The fact that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are life is not at all up to discussion. Calling them “just a blob of cells” or something similar is pure appeal to emotion. It’s sophistry. You are “just a blob of cells” too. 

And what else is not up to discussion is that humans have the genetic material of humans from conception. From a scientific standpoint — the one that matters here, the only non-arbitrary one — humans are humans from conception. Abortion is not at all like stepping on grass; grass won’t grow up to become a fully functioning person just like you and I. 

 

Parasitism is by definition a heterospecific ecological relationship which is harmful for the host and beneficiary for the parasite. Thus there are two ways in which it is wrong to call an unborn human a parasite; it is not harmful to its mother in the vast majority of the cases (and you can’t base your definitions on exceptions) and it is the same species as its mother. If you’re still not convinced, consider the following: the child and the mother have a common biological motive: to pass on the mother’s genetic material. A parasite and its host have, on the other hand, conflicting motives. A child in the womb increase its mother’s biological fitness, a parasite decreases it.

 

Unborn humans aren’t parts of the body of their mothers either. They’re not her kidney or appendix or whatever. They can be compared to those in that they take her nutrients and other resources in the same way (thence in an innocuous manner), but they have their own genetic material and can reproduce in the future, and are therefore individuals in themselves. 

 

Now, when it comes to morality, trying to apply the NAP to abortion when taking in consideration all definitions above currently seems like trying to apply Newton’s laws to electrons to me, but I have indeed been thinking deeply about the subject for days. In case I ever reach a conclusion, I shall meticulously explain my reasoning on this forum.

[vahleeb]

This is a very interesting subject to me and I was going to make my own thread on it because I want to approach it from a different (NAP based) angle, but I still have to work out all the kinks before putting that theory forward.

 

In the meantime there are a few aspects in this thread that caught my attention.

 

First of all the way the problem is laid out from the get go is wrong, I think, because it tries to impose a situation of equality. This is tentatively addressed throughout the thread but I think it's not pressed enough. The reproductive function of males and females is probably the very essence of what makes men and women different and as such not equal. To try and establish some philosophical rules around the whole process being motivated by equality is akin to trying to make 2 equal to 3. Basically what I'm saying is that you can't have equality here because there is no equality here.

 

Second of all, when skimping through and seeing people talking about contracts and outcomes and a woman's right over her body the concept of slavery popped up in my mind and soon enough I found it in the discussion as well. There seem to be people on this forum that think all the wrong in the world can be made right if you sign a contract and somehow contracts have this amazing power to whitewash any situation. But what all of you seem to lose track of is that slavery, in the past, was also "regulated" by contracts (bills of sale, falling into debt, etc). And all we do is focus on the "moral" aspect of it: humans can't be property because property can't own property and humans can't belong to two opposing categories, but the truth is that humans can't be property because of a different reason. Humans own their bodies. And when the concept of slavery is brought up, it supposes the transfer of the property over one's own body to a third person (the master). But regardless of the contract signed and the voluntarism that is involved this transfer cannot be made in the perfect way that is presupposed by slavery (that is 100% of the time). The acts of waking up, of falling asleep, of being hungry or being thirsty, of needing to pee are actions of the body that cannot be commanded externally by a third person, therefore the transfer of property can never be fully realised because it is broken by these instances. This is why slavery cannot be "whitewashed" by a contract because it's the slave that cannot deliver on the terms of the contract. It's this line of reasoning that leads me to the conclusion that a woman cannot sign over control of her own body, even for the limited but continuous period of time that would take a child from conception to delivery.

 

The third thing is the (deliberate I'd say) confusion over life and "life". Most people here equate "taking a life" with killing a sentient being and use the term in that manner. It may be less biologically accurate, but it also has the advantage that we don't get taken to jail for cutting down a tree. On the other hand, I have also seen the advocacy that an embryo is a "potential" life and should deserve the same protection as a "real" life. While I do understand the argument, why do we have to stop there? Why does only a fertilised egg qualify as potential life and not the process leading to it? Why shouldn't we punish the "potential" parents who choose to use contraception or the man who releases his semen outside of the woman's vagina as having taken away the "potential" of that life? The problem that I see with making an argument based on potential is that there is virtually no preceding (original) limit where we can "delimit" it. If the embryo deserves the same "protection" because it is the direct predecessor of the foetus (potential foetus) who is the direct predecessor of the baby (potential baby), then aren't the semen and the ova the direct predecessors of the embryo? Shouldn't we accuse a man having a vasectomy as murdering all of his "potential" babies? Shouldn't we accuse the woman that fails to have unprotected sex during one sexual cycle that she killed the potential of that particular egg? These are unreasonable positions, I know, but the argument "from potential" can be made in all of them.

 

In the end I'd say to the OP, there is no notion of equality in the whole matter because there is no equality, not until men can get pregnant, anyways. 

[Natalia]

The third thing is the (deliberate I'd say) confusion over life and "life". Most people here equate "taking a life" with killing a sentient being and use the term in that manner. It may be less biologically accurate, but it also has the advantage that we don't get taken to jail for cutting down a tree.

 

So according to you, people on coma, since they are not sentient, can be killed without violating the NAP?

 

As far as I understand it, the NAP doesn’t apply to either life or senescence, but rather to human beings, since it’s about interpersonal relationships. If it applied to senescence…

(This is out of scale, of course. I’m just illustrating the overlaps.)

 

why do we have to stop there? Why does only a fertilised egg qualify as potential life and not the process leading to it? Why shouldn't we punish the "potential" parents who choose to use contraception or the man who releases his semen outside of the woman's vagina as having taken away the "potential" of that life?

 

“If we grant homosexuals the right to marry, why should we stop there? Why shouldn’t we allow people to marry children and animals too?”

 

I recognize that there’a a problem with saying that a fertilized egg is a “potential life,” but that’s because it’s already a life. What people mean by saying that is that it’s a potentially sentient being (just like someone on coma, by the way.)

 

As I pointed out in my last post, humans are individuals in themselves since conception. The slippery slope you mentioned makes no sense at all. A spermatozoon is a gamete, not a biological individual, and whether it is inside or outside a man’s body doesn’t change that it’s not an individual. A fertilized egg, on the other hand, is forsooth an individual in itself.

 

I’m not pro-life, I’m indecisive about this issue, but it’s necessary to use biologically correct definitions and be logically consistent.

[dsayers]

Unborn humans aren’t parts of the body of their mothers either. They’re not her kidney or appendix or whatever. They can be compared to those in that they take her nutrients and other resources in the same way (thence in an innocuous manner), but they have their own genetic material and can reproduce in the future, and are therefore individuals in themselves. 

Kidneys have their own genetic material and reproduce every day.

 

The ways in which being pregnant are detrimental to the mother host and beneficial to the fetus are numerous. Its motives can not change this.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Kidneys have their own genetic material and reproduce every day.

 

The ways in which being pregnant are detrimental to the mother host and beneficial to the fetus are numerous. Its motives can not change this.

 

How long did you spend on this post? I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, but it doesn't seem very committed to this topic to reply with two sentences towards such a well written post, given all the context she provided.

[Natalia]

 

 

Kidneys have their own genetic material and reproduce every day.

 

The ways in which being pregnant are detrimental to the mother host and beneficial to the fetus are numerous. Its motives can not change this.

Excuse me, I may have not sounded clear enough in my post, but what I meant is that children in the womb have their own genetic material different from their mother’s. Every cell in your body except for gametes has exactly the same genetic material as the other cells. Furthermore, your cells make up tissues that make up organs that make up systems that make up one organism. Now a fetus isn’t a part of this — it’s not a tissue or organ in its mother’s body — it’s an organism inside an organism.

 

The only fundamental difference between a zygote and a grown up adult is time.

 

I don’t see how pregnancy is by nature detrimental to the mother, unless that by “detrimental” you mean “uncomfortable.” And the fact that children in the womb are not parasites is not up to discussion, as I pointed out.

 

In fact, there are several ways in which pregnancy is actually good for women's health. Going incessantly through cycles of estradiol and progesterone for decades is not only stressful but an evolutionary novel phenomenon that has a key role in the dramatic increase of breast and ovarian cancers in contemporary times; throughout most of human history and before it, females had a much later menarche and as soon as they had it, they stayed pregnant and breastfeeding for decades. Breast and ovarian cancer rates are significantly higher in women with few or no children.

 

In the end, the question regarding the morality of abortion is at its core the question of whether we should regard the discomfort of an individual as more important than the life of another.

 

I do not attempt to answer such question in my present posts. There are libertarian arguments for both positions, and I’m still brooding over the matter.

[dsayers]

How long did you spend on this post?

I reject your implication that time invested has any bearing on the truth value of an objective claim.

 

In the end, the question regarding the morality of abortion is at its core the question of whether we should regard the discomfort of an individual as more important than the life of another.

I'm afraid the conversation has gotten long to the point where you may have inter-meshed points being made. When I mentioned that a fetus is part of a woman's body, this was for the purpose of addressing property rights. The discussion of im/a/moral status of abortion was a separate conversation. One where comfort has no place. A fetus fails the moral actor test and therefore abortion cannot have a moral component. I hope I have succeeded in clarifying my position.

[vahleeb]

So according to you, people on coma, since they are not sentient, can be killed without violating the NAP?

 

As far as I understand it, the NAP doesn’t apply to either life or senescence, but rather to human beings, since it’s about interpersonal relationships. If it applied to senescence…

 

(This is out of scale, of course. I’m just illustrating the overlaps.)

 

 

“If we grant homosexuals the right to marry, why should we stop there? Why shouldn’t we allow people to marry children and animals too?”

 

I recognize that there’a a problem with saying that a fertilized egg is a “potential life,” but that’s because it’s already a life. What people mean by saying that is that it’s a potentially sentient being (just like someone on coma, by the way.)

 

As I pointed out in my last post, humans are individuals in themselves since conception. The slippery slope you mentioned makes no sense at all. A spermatozoon is a gamete, not a biological individual, and whether it is inside or outside a man’s body doesn’t change that it’s not an individual. A fertilized egg, on the other hand, is forsooth an individual in itself.

 

I’m not pro-life, I’m indecisive about this issue, but it’s necessary to use biologically correct definitions and be logically consistent.

 

People in commas are sentient, the impairment is temporary. I think killing people in their sleep violates the NAP too. People who are brain-dead on the other hand can be described as no longer sentient which is why we have the procedure of "pulling the plug".

 

It seems to me that your argument is predicated on the embryo/foetus being a "human being". But I don't think you're right about that. Human beings have moral agency, foetuses/embryos do not. Human beings can be described as individuals (definition: a separate entity containing its own identity completely delimited from any other entity both physically and psychologically - you may put forward an alternate definition of individual, if you wish), embryos/foetuses can't.

 

The closest category of humans that we could have to embryos/foetuses is children since they also lack moral agency, but even that is not close enough because if a child causes the death of a fellow child, we do hold them responsible (at least morally, if not legally), but if a foetus kills off its twin in the womb (numerous cases have been recorded, due to too many embryos and not enough room/resources) we don't hold them responsible at all. Also the case for "humanity" is rather hard to make when examining the embryos during that intermediate phase when they still exhibit gills among other characteristics. In fact, we can't even use the appropriate gender pronoun before the sexual organs are fully formed and have to resort to calling the foetus "it". 

 

I don't understand why after doing away with the "potential human being" as a description of the foetus, you still feel inclined to "ridicule" my argument from potential. Which I'll say you haven't succeeded. First of all, with regards to gays, the analogy holds if you're making the argument that sexual orientation is genetic, where it breaks is the part where by definition marriage is consensual and children/animals cannot offer up consent. 

 

As far as "individuals within themselves" I think the definition of individuals that I put forward above explains why they actually are not.

[Sima]

I got some ideas:

 

We are on a higher evolution level,and we use animal meat and trees.  

 

UPB is about human life rules which are good or not harmfull for everyone. 

 

I separate UPB of  human from UPB of dogs or trees. Yes we are predators in animal kingdom. 

But i want to survive, nature gives us tools to win against other species, what's wrong with that?

Did we decided to get intellect and use tools? Nature made it possible for us. And nature likes the strongest. 

We are one of the strongest species based on survival skills. Nature likes competition. 

And nature gives us a very strong wish to survive and live as an instinct,

 and I think I want the human race to survive.  And abortion is not good strategy for promoting humans as a species.

It goes against nature.

[MrNlul77]

I think nobody is denying(I may be wrong) that a fertilised egg is indeed "life" in a biological sense; however, some people are of the opinion that this "life", as it contains "human" tissue and DNA, can be classed as a "human being" and should be treated as such, which is subjective opinion.

[dsayers]

UPB is about human life

I would challenge this. The ability to reason is what makes a moral actor. If dolphins evolved to the point of understanding the other and calculating consequences, they would be people. This is really important to understand because without this acceptance of philosophical consistency, humans will just try and use their position of former superiority to beat back the dolphins, just as they have each other throughout history.

[Sima]

At the moment its corporations who are winning against the majority of people.

If we don't stand up against that we will be doomed.

Are we clever enough to fight this fight of survival?

They don't care that we are thinking creatures, who are able to reason. 

I think dolphins, if they were clever ,  would make a universally preferable rule "don't push another dolphin out of water".

Just an idea.

[Natalia]

Edited: fixed messy double post

 

I'm afraid the conversation has gotten long to the point where you may have inter-meshed points being made. When I mentioned that a fetus is part of a woman's body, this was for the purpose of addressing property rights. The discussion of im/a/moral status of abortion was a separate conversation. One where comfort has no place. A fetus fails the moral actor test and therefore abortion cannot have a moral component. I hope I have succeeded in clarifying my position.

 

Well, my intention with my posts was to set definitions straight, although I did conclude each one with a paragraph letting it clear that I’m not pro-life.

 

A fetus is not a part of a woman’s body, but it is indeed inside of it, I think that’s what you mean — it’s an organism inside another organism — and that’s why I’m indecisive about my instance on abortion in the first place: because of the property rights.

 

I see that you seem to only apply morality to currently moral agents. That’s an even narrower cohort than sentient humans, what I see as problematic.

 

People in commas are sentient, the impairment is temporary. I think killing people in their sleep violates the NAP too. People who are brain-dead on the other hand can be described as no longer sentient which is why we have the procedure of "pulling the plug".

 

 

The fact that coma and sleep are temporary doesn’t mean that people are sentient in them. They're not. That's pretty much what differentiates people in vigilance from people in sleep or coma: sentience. And being a child in the womb is just as temporary as both of those.

See: http://www.equip.org/article/attainment-of-sentience-is-sentience-a-dividing-line-for-life/

 

I like how the article ends: “[W]hat makes it morally right to kill plants and to pull the plug on the respirator-dependent brain dead, who were sentient ‘in the past,’ is that their deaths cannot deprive them of their natural inherent capacity to function as persons, since they do not possess such a capacity.”

 

It seems to me that your argument is predicated on the embryo/foetus being a "human being". But I don't think you're right about that. Human beings have moral agency, foetuses/embryos do not. Human beings can be described as individuals (definition: a separate entity containing its own identity completely delimited from any other entity both physically and psychologically - you may put forward an alternate definition of individual, if you wish), embryos/foetuses can't.

 

The closest category of humans that we could have to embryos/foetuses is children since they also lack moral agency, but even that is not close enough because if a child causes the death of a fellow child, we do hold them responsible (at least morally, if not legally), but if a foetus kills off its twin in the womb (numerous cases have been recorded, due to too many embryos and not enough room/resources) we don't hold them responsible at all.

 

I used the word individual as it is often used in biology, but later I acknowledged that the word "organism" is more appropriate to what I was trying to convey.

 

As dsayers, you seem to think that we should only be expected to act morally towards those who are currently moral agents, what I dissent. If you hold that opinion, you have to come to terms with the fact that according to it, severely mentally ill people, people on coma and even asleep people should not have the rights that come with personhood. Otherwise, what would it be that those people have that children in the womb do not possess, that I or the article I linked have not yet addressed?

 

Also the case for "humanity" is rather hard to make when examining the embryos during that intermediate phase when they still exhibit gills among other characteristics.

 

That sounds like appeal to emotion to me. From a scientific standpoint, it’s not up to discussion that human embryos are… human. Yes, they have those characteristics, but that's why humans are chordates. And I mean, it’s not as if an organism can change its species throughout its lifetime.

 

Honestly, I’m laughing so much right now; you basically said embryos aren't human because they don’t look human.

 

I don't understand why after doing away with the "potential human being" as a description of the foetus, you still feel inclined to "ridicule" my argument from potential. Which I'll say you haven't succeeded. First of all, with regards to gays, the analogy holds if you're making the argument that sexual orientation is genetic, where it breaks is the part where by definition marriage is consensual and children/animals cannot offer up consent.

I was merely pointing out your fallacious slippery slope, not "ridiculing" anything. Comparing bestiality to homosexuality, as I’ve seen several conservatists doing, is just as fallacious as comparing gametes to organisms/individuals.

 

It goes against nature.

I used to argue like that too. But just so you know, that's ad naturam.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Natalia

[Troubador]

I have a personal connection to this topic as I am currently raising a child that was the direct result of contraceptive fraud. Therefore I suspect my own emotions are caught up in the ways I am not aware of. That said as has been mentioned up thread equality is an impossible task given the biology, it's like having a jigsaw puzzle with an odd number of pieces there is no way to fairly allocate them equally.

 

For my own sins I trusted the wrong person, and have to deal with the consequences. Irrespective of what fingers can be pointed in whichever direction I am responsible for my son, he's not the responsibility of my neighbour to pay for and raise. Where we could go logically from here is an insurance company that deals policies to sexually active adults. People can be free to be active sexually, with pay outs should unplanned pregnancies occur. It should also take the financial pressure off individuals, and the only people who pay are those who are engaging in the activity that risks it through their premiums.

 

Whilst it is tempting to think that allowing men to financially opt out may eliminate the irresponsible behaviour from some women, to be fair men have been able to opt out historically before dna testing came about, yet the situation still occurred, looking at the Magdalene laundries in Ireland and other such things history is replete with such attempts to create control human sexuality with only partial success.

[vahleeb]

 

I see that you seem to only apply morality to currently moral agents. That’s an even narrower cohort than sentient humans, what I see as problematic.

 

 

The fact that coma and sleep are temporary doesn’t mean that people are sentient in them. They're not. That's pretty much what differentiates people in vigilance from people in sleep or coma: sentience. And being a child in the womb is just as temporary as both of those.

See: http://www.equip.org/article/attainment-of-sentience-is-sentience-a-dividing-line-for-life/

 

I like how the article ends: “[W]hat makes it morally right to kill plants and to pull the plug on the respirator-dependent brain dead, who were sentient ‘in the past,’ is that their deaths cannot deprive them of their natural inherent capacity to function as persons, since they do not possess such a capacity.”

 

I used the word individual as it is often used in biology, but later I acknowledged that the word "organism" is more appropriate to what I was trying to convey.

 

As dsayers, you both seem to think that we should only be expected to act morally towards those who are currently moral agents, what I dissent. If you hold that opinion, you have to come to terms with the fact that according to it, severely mentally ill people, people on coma and even asleep people should not have the rights that come with personhood. Otherwise, what would it be that those people have that children in the womb do not possess, that I have not yet addressed?

 

That sounds like appeal to emotion to me. From a scientific standpoint, it’s not up to discussion that human embryos are… human. Yes, they have those characteristics, but that's why humans are chordates. And I mean, it’s not as if an organism can change its species throughout its lifetime.

 

Honestly, I’m laughing so much right now; you basically said embryos aren't human because they don’t look human.

 

I was merely pointing out your fallacious slippery slope, not "ridiculing" anything. Comparing bestiality to homosexuality, as I’ve seen several conservatists doing, is just as fallacious as comparing gametes to organisms/individuals.

 

So first of all here's the definition of sentience: Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. (Wikipedia, via Miriam-Webster)

 

Since it is defined as a capacity, the people in a coma and the people who are asleep still possess this capacity because they have possessed it in the past and we know that once their current temporary state expires, they will return to the exertion of that capacity. Embryos and foetuses do not have that capacity, they will at some point in the future, sure, but as of yet and as of their current state of development they do not possess that capacity nor have they possessed it in the past.

 

When sentient people voluntarily migrate into a state of sleep, or even involuntarily migrate into a state of coma, they possess the expectation to wake up and return to their previous state. While this is a possibility (save from the braindead) then terminating their lives violates that expectation. It doesn't matter that they won't "experience" their deaths, because we are still violating against their desires from their last "experiencing" state. This is something that embryos and foetuses don't have until they first develop sentience.

 

But that's not even the crux of it, because we kill sentient beings for food by the millions every day. It's actually self-awareness that turns slaughter into murder and that's even harder to pin down in the baby's development (and i say baby because I currently think that self-awarenes happens some time after birth).

 

Now, the problem with the article you quoted is that it uses language that is contradictory to the state of the foetus. Take the following quote: "One can be harmed without experiencing the hurt that sometimes follows from that harm, and which we often mistake for the harm itself." The word "one" implies both sentience and identity (self-awareness + time) and neither one of those qualities can be applied to foetuses.

 

 

 

I used the word individual as it is often used in biology, but later I acknowledged that the word "organism" is more appropriate to what I was trying to convey.

 

I wonder if you could expand upon the use of "individual" in biology and how it differs from the definition I have put forward. Because if you substitute "organism" for it, then I have no moral obligation towards an organism. Just as before, "individual" is a concept that has attached to it sentience and self-awarenes which means they are automatically a moral agent (save some serious mental damage).

 

 

 

As dsayers, you seem to think that we should only be expected to act morally towards those who are currently moral agents, what I dissent.

 

There are three problems with what you say here.

 

First, you are conflating acting morally towards someone with holding someone morally accountable, but they are two very different things. And you're substituting "acting morally" for the NAP (which is less of a "sin", but it serves the above conflation). Moral agents are those that are self-aware and possess enough reasoning capacity to extrapolate from self-awareness to concepts and this is why we hold them morally responsible for their actions.

 

Second, the non-agression principle as moral behaviour. We do not aggress against other beings if they are capable of experiencing that aggression or (as I said before) if they would normally oppose that aggression in their natural state and have a significant likelihood to return to their natural state. Mentally ill people can still perceive that aggression, therefore they fall under the protection of the NAP. Seems to me like there'd be some room for a discussion here about NAP and vegetarianism, but that's not relevant for this discussion right now. I hope, though, that this puts to rest the topic of applying the NAP to the comatose and the asleep.

 

Third, unless you are willing to convict for murder, or at least to hold morally responsible, the foetus that, while in the womb, kills off and incorporates its twin, due to reasons described above, then you are also not regarding the foetus as a moral agent.

 

 

 

From a scientific standpoint, it’s not up to discussion that human embryos are… human.

 

That's true. I think I expressed myself wrong. What I meant was that they are not human beings. And I was just pointing out some physical differences to pile on top of the psychological and moral differences. Maybe that was the wrong strategy.

 

 

 

I was merely pointing out your fallacious slippery slope, not "ridiculing" anything.

 

Actually you were, just like using the term "fallacious slippery slope" is still ridiculing. I invite you to go back over the original text in which I admit the position that we end up is absurd, but it's just a natural consequence of applying the same principle consistently. This was designed to show that there has to be more than just that particular principle in deciding the morality of the situation. And then, in my next post (the "ridiculing" one) I point out that you seemed to abandon by yourself the argument from "potential" altogether in your follow-up post, which makes me wonder if you understood at all what the principle that I applied was, why I applied it and what I was trying to prove.

 

 

Otherwise, what would it be that those people have that children in the womb do not possess, that I or the article I linked have not yet addressed?

 

Sentience and self-awareness. This has the result that all the defences that apply to the comatose, the asleep and the mentally ill (because they come from sentience and self-awareness), do not apply to foetuses. Also the article is poisoned by the wrong (contradictory) language from the start, so I don't give it credit for any points.

[Des]

Even if the woman signs a contract beforehand that she would have a baby if they concieved or agrees to surrogate, she still has freedom of choice over her own body and nobody can force her to have a baby against her will. The onus is on the man to wisely choose the woman he has sex with.

A well-drafted contract will say, effectively: I will do x, and if I don't then you have recourse y.

For example: I will abort, and if I do not, then you can refuse child support.

Think how this will work if the contract is to give birth: I will give birth to the baby (unless the danger to my own life exceeds w%), or you can recover from me a penalty of $z. If you can't get a signature to a penalty, you have no assurance at all, and if you can get that signature, you still may end up with financial compensation and no child.

Would a rational woman sign a contract that read: I will give birth to the baby (unless the danger to my own life exceeds w%), or you can lock me in a cage for z many years?  I think not, and that is why no such law will exist where people are only bound by laws they agree to.

 

People who are very different in their acceptance of abortion when the threat to the life of the mother-to-be is "usual", should not be trying to live in the same geographic area under the same law - the resolution to their differences over preferred law (or custom), is to separate and live separately.

[Des]

People who are very different in their acceptance of abortion when the threat to the life of the mother-to-be is "usual", should not be trying to live in the same geographic area under the same law - the resolution to their differences over preferred law (or custom), is to separate and live separately.

To clarify, I am not ordering you to separate, I am proposing to ignore my concerns about your dispute if you insist on remaining within the same system of social order in the same embordered territory as each other (you ignore my suggestion, I ignore your dispute).

[Natalia]

Since it is defined as a capacity, the people in a coma and the people who are asleep still possess this capacity because they have possessed it in the past and we know that once their current temporary state expires, they will return to the exertion of that capacity. Embryos and foetuses do not have that capacity, they will at some point in the future, sure, but as of yet and as of their current state of development they do not possess that capacity nor have they possessed it in the past.

 

I see the source of our discord here. You seem to be of the opinion that children in the womb are intrinsically different from human beings you can see and interact with, while I see time as the sole difference. You say that embryos do not have the capacity to be sentient, but, well, technically, comatose people don’t have such capacity either. Once they’re sentient, they’re not comatose anymore, just like once embryos are sentient they’re not embryos anymore. Those words are dependent on time, they do not define an individual, rather merely a temporary stage in which it is.

 

“Embryos are whole human beings, at the early stage of their maturation. The term 'embryo', similar to the terms 'infant' and 'adolescent', refers to a determinate and enduring organism at a particular stage of development.”

 

When sentient people voluntarily migrate into a state of sleep, or even involuntarily migrate into a state of coma, they possess the expectation to wake up and return to their previous state. While this is a possibility (save from the braindead) then terminating their lives violates that expectation. It doesn't matter that they won't "experience" their deaths, because we are still violating against their desires from their last "experiencing" state. This is something that embryos and foetuses don't have until they first develop sentience.

 

But that's not even the crux of it, because we kill sentient beings for food by the millions every day. It's actually self-awareness that turns slaughter into murder and that's even harder to pin down in the baby's development (and i say baby because I currently think that self-awarenes happens some time after birth).

 

To quote from the article you refused to read,

 

“[T]o claim that a person can be sentient, become nonsentient, and then return to sentience is to assume there is some underlying personal unity to this individual that enables us to say that the person who has returned to sentience is the same person who was sentient prior to becoming nonsentient. But this would mean that sentience is not a necessary condition for personhood. (Neither is it a sufficient condition, for that matter, since nonhuman animals are sentient.) Consequently, it does not make sense to say that a person comes into existence when sentience arises, but it does make sense to say that a fully human entity is a person who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to sentience. A presentient unborn human entity does have this capacity. Therefore, an ordinary unborn human entity is a person, and hence, fully human.”

 

The word "one" implies both sentience and identity (self-awareness + time) and neither one of those qualities can be applied to foetuses.

The word “one” merely implies personhood, and the personhood of the unborn is explained in the paragraph from the article I quoted above as well as several times in this post.

 

I wonder if you could expand upon the use of "individual" in biology and how it differs from the definition I have put forward. Because if you substitute "organism" for it, then I have no moral obligation towards an organism.

 

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Individual

 

I was stressing the fact that children in the womb are individuals because some claimed they were part of their mother’s body like a foot, what is baloney. It was not to say that they’re individuals therefore you have moral obligations towards them — what makes you have moral obligations towards them is the fact that they’re people.

 

There are three problems with what you say here.

 

First, you are conflating acting morally towards someone with holding someone morally accountable, but they are two very different things. And you're substituting "acting morally" for the NAP (which is less of a "sin", but it serves the above conflation). Moral agents are those that are self-aware and possess enough reasoning capacity to extrapolate from self-awareness to concepts and this is why we hold them morally responsible for their actions.

 

Second, the non-agression principle as moral behaviour. We do not aggress against other beings if they are capable of experiencing that aggression or (as I said before) if they would normally oppose that aggression in their natural state and have a significant likelihood to return to their natural state. Mentally ill people can still perceive that aggression, therefore they fall under the protection of the NAP. Seems to me like there'd be some room for a discussion here about NAP and vegetarianism, but that's not relevant for this discussion right now. I hope, though, that this puts to rest the topic of applying the NAP to the comatose and the asleep.

 

Third, unless you are willing to convict for murder, or at least to hold morally responsible, the foetus that, while in the womb, kills off and incorporates its twin, due to reasons described above, then you are also not regarding the foetus as a moral agent.

 

The NAP applies to people, as far as I’m aware. If you do not consider a fetus or embryo a person, then:

1. You have to define at which point personhood begins other than the beginning of the existence of the Homo sapiens individual, and such definition would be inherently arbitrary;

2. You’re basically saying that personhood is a stage of life like adolescence, and therefore cannot define an individual.

 

Fetuses don’t kill each other in the womb. Dying =/= being killed.

 

What I meant was that they are not human beings.

 

Except that they are, you have literally no say in that; they’re Homo sapiens; you were a fetus once and you’ve never not been a human being. As long as you existed you’ve been a human being, and you have existed since you were conceived.

 

Actually you were, just like using the term "fallacious slippery slope" is still ridiculing. I invite you to go back over the original text in which I admit the position that we end up is absurd, but it's just a natural consequence of applying the same principle consistently.

No it’s not. You don’t seem to understand a very simple fact: that humanhood begins with conception. Not after, much less before. It begins with existence, people don’t exist before they are conceived and what does not exist cannot have rights. But since you exist, since you were conceived, you’ve been just as human (Homo sapiens and thereby person) as you are right now.

 

This was designed to show that there has to be more than just that particular principle in deciding the morality of the situation. And then, in my next post (the "ridiculing" one) I point out that you seemed to abandon by yourself the argument from "potential" altogether in your follow-up post, which makes me wonder if you understood at all what the principle that I applied was, why I applied it and what I was trying to prove.

 

Children in the wombats not potential human beings, they are human beings.

 

If you're still not convinced, consider the fact that science as a whole is 100% sure of that and I can pull a supporting scientific paper from a quick google search, but I can't seem to find any scientific reason not to consider human embryos as human… that's just plain ignorant.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672893/

 

Sentience and self-awareness. This has the result that all the defences that apply to the comatose, the asleep and the mentally ill (because they come from sentience and self-awareness), do not apply to foetuses. Also the article is poisoned by the wrong (contradictory) language from the start, so I don't give it credit for any points.

 

The article explains why fetuses can be considered people and therefore receive the “one” pronoun and it approaches just the argument you gave here. You should have read it in its entirety.

 

I can't help but think that not considering embryos as people is completely arbitrary and subjective, apart from implying that personhood is merely a stage in which an individual is and not something that can define it.

[vahleeb]

I see the source of our discord here. You seem to be of the opinion that children in the womb are intrinsically different from human beings you can see and interact with, while I see time as the sole difference. You say that embryos do not have the capacity to be sentient, but, well, technically, comatose people don’t have such capacity either. Once they’re sentient, they’re not comatose anymore, just like once embryos are sentient they’re not embryos anymore. Those words are dependent on time, they do not define an individual, rather merely a temporary stage in which it is.

 

No, the capacity is actually closely correlated to the ammount of brain matter in the organism. You keep saying "time" as though that's supposed to have been my argument. Read again, please. The comatose and the asleep possess the capacity regardless of wether they're actually in the exercise of that capacity or not. Foetuses don't possess that capacity. You do understand the difference between having a capacity and actually exercising that capacity, right? (Like drinking water).

 

Also the quote you are giving me from the article is doing the same "confusion" you are. Sentience is a capacity (as defined a few posts above). You have a capacity even though you don't exercise that capacity.

 

Now about your argument that embryos are humans. Undoubtably they are homo sapiens embryos. What you fail to grasp is that they are not moral agents in any way shape or form and that is the actual heart of the discussion. Either you have just created a separate category of humans that have no moral obligations or agency but that generate moral obligations to others, or the moral obligations HAVE TO BE connected to something other than their "personhood" which you and your beloved article define as the belonging to the homo sapiens species.

 

This is what I am saying all along actually, that the moral obligations are connected to something other than their homo sapiens-ness: to sentience which is something that foetuses do not have. (I would actually go even further and claim that self-awareness is the characteristic, but that's another discussion.)

 

The rest of the discussion is simple: you don't have "a" term for this separation while I do (I call them "human beings", with all of their precursory forms being referred to as "potential human beings") and you're just confusing the language. You're free to come up with a term and I'll adopt it just to continue the conversation.

 

But first, you should resolve the contradiction in your own reasoning that I outlined above: when does moral agency begin and why, and when do moral obligations begin and why. Because right now, you seem of the belief that a human being is absolutely identical in moral status at the moment of conception as well as at the moment of achieving full brain maturity if you take time out of the equation and that in spite of the fact that you, yourself, do not hold up children and foetuses to the same standards that you hold adults to.

 

Because if we put two people (moral agents) in a situation of restricted resources to the point where the both of them cannot sustain their own lives at the same time, then the one who lives by eating the "share" of the one who dies, is morally responsible even though we may just describe it as "dying" and not "murder".

[violet]

The NAP applies to people, as far as I’m aware. If you do not consider a fetus or embryo a person, then:

1. You have to define at which point personhood begins other than the beginning of the existence of the Homo sapiens individual, and such definition would be inherently arbitrary;

This is one of the main arguments that changed my mind about abortion. If you believe that abortion is moral because the fetus is not human, you have to be clear about when it becomes a human. Does the fetus become a human when it is born? Some argue that newborns are still in the fetal stage. What if the baby is born premature? At what point is it granted the right to life?

 

As far as women having the right to choose to keep a pregnancy or not and the man having no say, I do think it is unfair, but it is an inequality rooted in biology. Since a baby grows inside the body of the woman, I would argue that a man can't choose to keep/abort the child without initiating force. So his choice is only in whether he will have sex with the woman or not.

 

However, I see injustice when a woman is allowed to force the man to pay for a child he does not want. She is using the force of the state to take property from the man against his will. This seems like a violation of the non-aggression principle to me. If, in theory, the woman had to keep the child and raise it, I might consider that the man had a responsibility to finance it. But the baby can, and probably should, be given to adoptive parents.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

No, the capacity is actually closely correlated to the ammount of brain matter in the organism. You keep saying "time" as though that's supposed to have been my argument. Read again, please. The comatose and the asleep possess the capacity regardless of wether they're actually in the exercise of that capacity or not. Foetuses don't possess that capacity. You do understand the difference between having a capacity and actually exercising that capacity, right? (Like drinking water).

 

 

Sorry, but if a person is asleep or comatose I don't see how they possess the capacity to exercise sentience in that state. Isn't it more accurate to say they have a future capacity, which relies on them leaving that state successfully? People die in their sleep, and in many cases a comatose person will not be able to enter sentience for years, so saying they presently possess the capacity to exercise sentience in a state of comatose is just not accurate. 

 

On the other hand, future capacity is necessarily indefinite to some degree. An infant has an indefinite future capacity for sentience. You may say the degree of indefiniteness is important, but it's not accurate to say an asleep person or a comatose person possess the capacity for sentience unless you're assuming they leave that state successfully and transition to a state of sentience. That would be like saying a computer has the capacity for performing tasks before it has been charged. No, it has a future capacity dependent on its successfully charging.

 

Now about your argument that embryos are humans. Undoubtably they are homo sapiens embryos. What you fail to grasp is that they are not moral agents in any way shape or form and that is the actual heart of the discussion. Either you have just created a separate category of humans that have no moral obligations or agency but that generate moral obligations to others, or the moral obligations HAVE TO BE connected to something other than their "personhood" which you and your beloved article define as the belonging to the homo sapiens species.

 

 

I'm not really sure what your argument is here. Are you just repeating that children at certain stages of development lack sentience and self awareness? So what? The question is whether force can be administered against the mother to keep the child alive.

 

You also seem to be completely unaware of the difference between an obligation to do something backed by force, and an "obligation" not to do something backed by force. We can get into that if you like, but I just wanted to point that out for now.

 

I look forward to your response

[Natalia]

]Either you have just created a separate category of humans that have no moral obligations or agency but that generate moral obligations to others,

I haven't created such a category. AFAIK it has never been moral to kill a mentally handicapped person. If it was, well, you’d have a hard time trying to define the exact severity of mental illness that would make it moral to kill someone.

 

But again, you have to understand that embryos have the same essence as a fully grown human being. The very same essence. They’re just in different stages of development.

[vahleeb]

Sorry, but if a person is asleep or comatose I don't see how they possess the capacity to exercise sentience in that state. Isn't it more accurate to say they have a future capacity, which relies on them leaving that state successfully? People die in their sleep, and in many cases a comatose person will not be able to enter sentience for years, so saying they presently possess the capacity to exercise sentience in a state of comatose is just not accurate. 

 

It's funny that you quote the exact place I use to illustrate the difference between having a capacity and exercising a capacity, and still show you don't understand the difference between having a capacity and actually exercising that capacity (Like drinking water).

 

You have the capacity to drink water all the time. You're only exercising that capacity when you're actually drinking water. Now replace that with sentience (the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively) and you'll see what I meant by saying the comatose and the asleep possess that capacity. Just in case I wasn't clear, sentience is defined as a capacity so when you say "the capacity to exercise sentience" you're literally saying "the capacity to exercise the capacity to feel/perceive/experience", so...

I'm not really sure what your argument is here. Are you just repeating that children at certain stages of development lack sentience and self awareness? So what? The question is whether force can be administered against the mother to keep the child alive.

Yes I am, because for the purpose of my post I am debating Natalia who is of the opinion that abortion is murder, because foetuses are equals to human beings in terms of morals. I am aware of what the original topic was, but I was under the impression we moved away from that. Which is probably why I give out the impression that you got of not being aware of a certain difference, but if you wanna expand on that topic, I'd welcome finding out more about it.

[vahleeb]

I haven't created such a category. AFAIK it has never been moral to kill a mentally handicapped person. If it was, well, you’d have a hard time trying to define the exact severity of mental illness that would make it moral to kill someone.

 

But again, you have to understand that embryos have the same essence as a fully grown human being. The very same essence. They’re just in different stages of development.

 

Not the argument I'm making. Actually, under what I'm saying, a mentally handicapped person, even a severely mentally handicapped person, generates moral obligations because they are sentient (again sentience = the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. )

 

I'm not sure essence is an argument. A kid and a cow are both alive. They share the "living" essence. In fact, they even share a whole lot of the same DNA (80% of it, to be exact). What is this essence delimited by? A biology topiary book?

 

But even if I were to go by your postulate that foetuses have the same essence with fully grown human beings, you defeat your own point. Because if they have the same essence and foetuses do not have sentience while human beings do, then sentience cannot be part of the essence. And your point is defeated because we kill off human beings (so endowed with all of the same essence as a foetus) that are no longer sentient - the braindead - without any moral repercussions.

 

EDIT: There is a reply to Matthew M. that's still stuck in moderation. I'm not ignoring you, Matthew.

Edited April 29, 2016 by vahleeb

[Frosty]

My belief is that early term abortion is not immoral and that women should have bodily autonomy, and that force should not be initiated against them because of choices they wish to make to their body even if that has consequences for the baby, although preferably abortion be done when no suffering can occur (before brain/nervous system development)

Given that I don't think any many should have any say over whether or not a woman can keep the baby, it should be her decision what she puts her body though. But there should definitely be consent with regards to raising children that has to occur before responsibility for the child becomes something you can enforce. So a man who doesn't consent to being a parent shouldn't be held accountable for the child if he's not consenting to the responsibilities of fatherhood, but by not consenting to that responsibility he loses all rights as a guardian/parent. Currently men do not have the right to  legal paternal surrender which just results in the use of force against them to extract resources to give to women which is bad enough on its own but also encourages families splitting apart and harm to the child under a single parent.

 

The current status of this is a complete and utter mess in the 1st world and is why I won't go anywhere near women anymore, the thought of pregnancy and children is utterly off putting because you're just handing the woman a loaded cannon and being force to stand in front of it, hoping that she wont light the fuse and blow you clean in twain.

 

I'd argue that until we see a reverse in the laws and decrease in state power, we'll continue to see an increase in divorce, single parenthood and men opting to stay clear of women in greater numbers (MGTOW, Herbivore men, etc).

[Des]

My belief is that early term abortion is not immoral and that women should have bodily autonomy, and that force should not be initiated against them because of choices they wish to make to their body even if that has consequences for the baby, although preferably abortion be done when no suffering can occur (before brain/nervous system development)

I have no dislike of your preference expressed here.

However:

1. You gave no argument why early term abortion is not immoral (statements of belief are not philosophical arguments).
2. If we had an argument that proved abortion to be immoral, it would not follow that the most moral (or most self-interested in an enlightened way) course of action for me, would be to pay a contribution to a group of people that use force to prevent or punish abortion.
3. Not causing suffering is a personal preference, which I share with you, and as I expect you do, I tune out some of the suffering so I can get through my day (and when it comes to animals, through my evening meal).

Foetuses are not going to rise up in arms against ill-treatment of their in-group. Those of us who are not foetuses are not part of their in-group, I predict we will remain divided in our preferences with respect to defending this group to which we do not belong. If you can resolve this so that all non-foetus humans either defend or do not defend the rights of foetuses, great. If not, why don't we split up: those who accept abortion under one set of conditions, go live with like people, and those for whom the conditions for acceptance of abortion are different, or for whom there is no such condition, go each into his part of each geographic area and at least live without getting into disputes with neighbours within the same borders.

 

The absence of a threat of uprising by foetuses, is why you can't make the case that I must defend* them in order to defend my own self-interest. I'll be glad to hear argument why that statement is incorrect.

 

*Be on record as having the position that an action to harm them is an action against me / hold myself ready to use force personally or by hired agent, in defence of them.

 

By contrast, already-born children in general have some adults who want them to be alive/defended, and I want a set of children I care about, to be alive/defended, so to defend* already-born children is in my self-interest, when reciprocity is included in the computation.

 

South African legal principle captures this difference, without explaining it in any meaningful way. The South African constitution's bill of human rights is the rights of "persons", not "humans". A foetus, in regard to his human rights in South Africa, is a "human" but not a "person" (unless he has drawn a breath). He qualifies as person when he breathes.  I may have missed a fine point somewhere, but that is the essence of the legal position here.

[Livemike]

In having sex you accept all possible outcomes. If conception happens and the man doesn't want the child and the woman does, the man has already accepted the possibility of that situation and as a result has accepted that he is bound to pay for the child. If the man wants the child and the woman doesnt, he has already accepted that he has no right over the womans body and cant force her into having it.

 

Then why isn't the woman bound by the results?  She can have an abortion, meaning she doesn't have to deal with the results of her actions.  He on the other hand has to deal with the results of her actions especially considering the pill works to an extremely high level of reliability.

[MrNlul77]

Then why isn't the woman bound by the results?  She can have an abortion, meaning she doesn't have to deal with the results of her actions.  He on the other hand has to deal with the results of her actions especially considering the pill works to an extremely high level of reliability.

I bowed out of this conversation as its goes round and round and in the end, in my opinion, it comes down to subjective opinion.

 

I'm just repeating myself but, As I see it, The woman isn't bound by the results as she still has a choice available, she owns her own body and the initiation of the use of force is immoral. The woman, in having an abortion, IS dealing with the results of her actions, she has exercised her property rights and freedom of choice. The man, on the other hand, once his sperm leaves his body and enters the woman's body, he no longer has any choice available, he has no property rights with regard to the woman's body. Men have sex with women in complete awareness of this knowledge.

 

A high level of reliability is not 100% (as I'm sure your aware, pregnancy does still occasionally result).

[Des]

I bowed out of this conversation as its goes round and round and in the end, in my opinion, it comes down to subjective opinion.

To support my argument for my resolution of the issue:

If we split up geographically, then:

Ms XXA who would prefer, if unintentionally pregant, to wait until month 8 and then perhaps decide to abort, would be living in a geographic area where that is quite acceptable. If Mr XYA allows her access to his sperm, he does so, understanding that the people around her, will support her decision to abort even until as late as that.

Ms XXB who intends to bring to term any unintentional foetus and live close to the father and facilitate the father's access to the child, may live in an area where that is the only acceptable decision. So let's say she does live in such an area. Then Mr XYB who allows her access to his sperm, is aware of the social influence that will pressure her to make that decision.

 

Those are the two extremes, but I am saying that this splitting up geographically, will address the concerns of men who at the moment are typically in the position that even if they discuss beforehand with a woman, her preferences, cannot predict what influence the people around her, will have on her decision, if she is pregnant. I am suggesting we split up according to the few permutations of preference that are distinct enough to actually attract a significant number of women away from other permutations.

If we meet a civilisation of space aliens, will we get involved in assessing their rules for aborting foetuses.

If so why, if not why not?

If space aliens tell us what is or is not moral with regard to abortion of humans, will we tell them our biology is different from theirs and they should shut up?

Is there a principle here that can be applied to thinking machines (self-aware robots)?

 

If different species would not instruct each other on the morality of abortion, is there actually any moral instruction, or is it just preference?