Spot on! Our individual DNA process is a continuous process, unfurling from the moment of conception. There is no later stage of our existence that is not dependent on earlier stages of our existence, as a continuous entity in space and time. Our DNA process is continuous in both space and time from the moment of our conception, to the moment of our death. Acceptance, rationalization of the termination of an already unfurling DNA process, once invited to unfurl, requires the irrational acceptance of a temporal bias. In the continuum of space/time, that continuously unfurling DNA process is not a complete individual human 'yet.' That is because we are not regarding that human over the complete time-space continuum that it exists in. But, the only thing required to see the complete individual human is the passage of time. We are of course much more than our unfurling DNA processes, but whatever we are, the basis of our life, cannot exist without the unmolested possession of that unfurling DNA process. The fetus is a concrete example of a new individual DNA process, unfurling. There is and has been a conflict to define the most fundamental aspect of an individual -- the term of its existence. The resolution of this conflict -- between the newest individual and others -- is resolved by others, based on whatever philosophical or moral guidance they bring to the conflict. The rationalizations in support of abortion boil down to the convenience of the others, based mostly on a shaky temporal bias that is permitted to stand, unquestioned.
This argument is pretty atrocious. It tries to synthetically impose meaning on a possibly objective reality. In the absence of religion, which creates circular arguments in this context, the world looks like nothing but a random collection of dead particles that evolved into the configuration and complexity of life on earth. In this case, nothing is objectively meaningful. Sure, we can still have *subjective* meaning - that imparted by our evolutionary drives and parameters, and the environment around us - but they're in that sense completely arbitrary. Suppose an alien was created by a very different optimization process that heavily selected for murderers. Then the alien would think that murder was good. And from its frame that would be true. Then, if meaning, value, and morals are truly subjective, if the suicidal person is in a philosophical vacuum where no one else values them either, I claim they're literally value-less. It's wrong to hastily conclude that individuals have value because we feel intuitively like they do. Maybe we just feel that way because feeling that way is what reproduces genes similar to ours the best. Similarly, if no one currently values the infant's life, there's nothing wrong with killing them. Also, there's no attribute of "thingn-ess". The world's not made of discrete objects. A sperm and an egg taken separately and a developed zygote - or a living, breathing baby, for that matter - are the same abstract thing: a *system of information* that in some ways the future could unfold will turn into an individual with self-valued experiences. The argument that the zygote is meaningfully different from the same informational state expressed by two separate things is ridiculous. In fact, let's take it to the extreme. If the world has no universal code of ethics, then killing a living baby is also okay. Brutally slaughtering it, or mugging and killing someone, or nuking an entire society - anything that we deem "intuitively bad" - is actually merely neutral. The philosophy of ethics is a hopeless endeavor because it presupposes that ethics are universal and not just the aggregate of many different subjective points of view. If we really want to do that, why not just find an arbitrary religion, adopt its moral stances, and - boom - the problem of abortion solved! Or survey a bunch of people and find out if they on average think it's bad to do something. But trying to axiomatize intuitions that we have for no good reason and impose them on ourselves is super bad. Like, that's an extreme new tier of self-justification. Sure, you and I and everyone feel like some things are wrong. But they aren't. Not meaningfully. If they feel wrong to us, we shouldn't do them. If not, there's no reason not to. Making hand-waving arguments about some abstract "ethics" we have no reason to believe exists accomplishes nothing. Either pick a religion or accept the void.
He also makes the assumption that killing is the worst act that can be done against one. I personally believe losing the right to make decisions about one's own body is worse. With killing you lose your body and your consciousness so the consequences are not reaped. When one loses control of their body they must still live out their futre with choices made by another-I believe this is a much worse outcome.
Why do you say - matter of factly - that the argument doesn't falsely imply that contraception is wrong? It happens to be the case that most people writing on the subject think it DOES have that implication, as do I.
I totally agree that abortion is immoral. However, during the interval where the unborn child cannot feel or think anything (first 4-8 weeks I think), the fetus ONLY has spiritual significance. So I believe a woman should be allowed to have an abortion during this interval BUT that goes on a record for all the religious communities to see, so that their religion will decide on their punishment.
@@sebastianbryhni539 Well I think that anybody who gets an abortion is a sick human being who'd rather have careless sex in the expense of murdering an innocent baby, however... if the baby cannot feel or think within the first 4 to 8 weeks then aborting it doesn't cause ANY physical or psychological pain. The only significance the baby holds is religious, spiritual significance. But it has no physical significance. I personally believe in spiritual worth, and so I am disgusted with abortion, but the people who think it's okay can do it if they want, but they should still be cast out of whatever religious community they follow, because they are directly go against God. So people should be free to abort 4-8weeks after pregnancy, when the baby only has religious significance, but then they should be viewed with digust by religion by having absolutely no spiritual regard.
Abortion is immoral even if the fetus cannot feel anything or understand anything. Saying that abortion is fine when the fetus cannot feel anything is saying that it’s life doesn’t really matter because it isn’t developed enough. I have mixed views on abortion in rape cases. I dont think it is right for a woman to be forced to carry a baby when she didn’t consent to sex, but I also dotn think it is right to kill the child because the child is innocent. I 100% agree that rapists should be either castrated or killed. I think that women who are raped need emotion support for their trauma. Abortion out of 50 years it was fully legal, it didn’t solve shit! Roe didn’t solve any issue regarding the foster care system or poverty or any other issues we have in life.
@@redtedgamer8692 Well I specifically said that a fetus has no physical worth if it cannot feel or think anything. The only worth it has is spiritual worth. So when you say it is immoral to kill a fetus that can't feel or think anything, what you're saying is that you can't kill a fetus because it still has spiritual value. But people who don't believe in God don't believe in spirit, so my point is that people should be allowed to get an abortion while the baby ONLY has spiritual significance, but they should be rejected by ALL religions
@@declanhugors regardless of what worth they have, their life matters and shouldn’t be treated like some trash to be disposed of. All humans have value regardless of what value it is. A fetus doesn’t have a feeling and understanding bc it hasn’t developed enough but that doesn’t mean it’s life doesn’t matter. That fetus will grow up and be able to live a life and meet people and do other things. Ripping it to pieces completely deprives the fetus of a future. It may not have physical worth but that doesn’t mean it life is not important or that it doesn’t deserve to live on.
![12. What is My Duty? Bodily Autonomy Arguments of Thomson, McDonagh, and Boonin [Ethics at...]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIm3g4ynA0c/mqdefault.jpg)
![12. What is My Duty? Bodily Autonomy Arguments of Thomson, McDonagh, and Boonin [Ethics at...]](/img/tr.png)
So how are gametes not included in FLO?
Thank you, this lecture helped me with my homework assignment.
Spot on! Our individual DNA process is a continuous process, unfurling from the moment of conception. There is no later stage of our existence that is not dependent on earlier stages of our existence, as a continuous entity in space and time. Our DNA process is continuous in both space and time from the moment of our conception, to the moment of our death.
Acceptance, rationalization of the termination of an already unfurling DNA process, once invited to unfurl, requires the irrational acceptance of a temporal bias. In the continuum of space/time, that continuously unfurling DNA process is not a complete individual human 'yet.' That is because we are not regarding that human over the complete time-space continuum that it exists in. But, the only thing required to see the complete individual human is the passage of time.
We are of course much more than our unfurling DNA processes, but whatever we are, the basis of our life, cannot exist without the unmolested possession of that unfurling DNA process.
The fetus is a concrete example of a new individual DNA process, unfurling. There is and has been a conflict to define the most fundamental aspect of an individual -- the term of its existence. The resolution of this conflict -- between the newest individual and others -- is resolved by others, based on whatever philosophical or moral guidance they bring to the conflict. The rationalizations in support of abortion boil down to the convenience of the others, based mostly on a shaky temporal bias that is permitted to stand, unquestioned.
Spitting
This argument is pretty atrocious. It tries to synthetically impose meaning on a possibly objective reality. In the absence of religion, which creates circular arguments in this context, the world looks like nothing but a random collection of dead particles that evolved into the configuration and complexity of life on earth. In this case, nothing is objectively meaningful. Sure, we can still have *subjective* meaning - that imparted by our evolutionary drives and parameters, and the environment around us - but they're in that sense completely arbitrary. Suppose an alien was created by a very different optimization process that heavily selected for murderers. Then the alien would think that murder was good. And from its frame that would be true.
Then, if meaning, value, and morals are truly subjective, if the suicidal person is in a philosophical vacuum where no one else values them either, I claim they're literally value-less. It's wrong to hastily conclude that individuals have value because we feel intuitively like they do. Maybe we just feel that way because feeling that way is what reproduces genes similar to ours the best. Similarly, if no one currently values the infant's life, there's nothing wrong with killing them.
Also, there's no attribute of "thingn-ess". The world's not made of discrete objects. A sperm and an egg taken separately and a developed zygote - or a living, breathing baby, for that matter - are the same abstract thing: a *system of information* that in some ways the future could unfold will turn into an individual with self-valued experiences. The argument that the zygote is meaningfully different from the same informational state expressed by two separate things is ridiculous.
In fact, let's take it to the extreme. If the world has no universal code of ethics, then killing a living baby is also okay. Brutally slaughtering it, or mugging and killing someone, or nuking an entire society - anything that we deem "intuitively bad" - is actually merely neutral. The philosophy of ethics is a hopeless endeavor because it presupposes that ethics are universal and not just the aggregate of many different subjective points of view. If we really want to do that, why not just find an arbitrary religion, adopt its moral stances, and - boom - the problem of abortion solved! Or survey a bunch of people and find out if they on average think it's bad to do something. But trying to axiomatize intuitions that we have for no good reason and impose them on ourselves is super bad. Like, that's an extreme new tier of self-justification. Sure, you and I and everyone feel like some things are wrong. But they aren't. Not meaningfully. If they feel wrong to us, we shouldn't do them. If not, there's no reason not to. Making hand-waving arguments about some abstract "ethics" we have no reason to believe exists accomplishes nothing. Either pick a religion or accept the void.
He also makes the assumption that killing is the worst act that can be done against one. I personally believe losing the right to make decisions about one's own body is worse. With killing you lose your body and your consciousness so the consequences are not reaped. When one loses control of their body they must still live out their futre with choices made by another-I believe this is a much worse outcome.
Why do you say - matter of factly - that the argument doesn't falsely imply that contraception is wrong? It happens to be the case that most people writing on the subject think it DOES have that implication, as do I.
Thank you for the good explanation!
I totally agree that abortion is immoral. However, during the interval where the unborn child cannot feel or think anything (first 4-8 weeks I think), the fetus ONLY has spiritual significance. So I believe a woman should be allowed to have an abortion during this interval BUT that goes on a record for all the religious communities to see, so that their religion will decide on their punishment.
You totally agree that abortion is immoral, yet you defend it?
@@sebastianbryhni539 Well I think that anybody who gets an abortion is a sick human being who'd rather have careless sex in the expense of murdering an innocent baby, however... if the baby cannot feel or think within the first 4 to 8 weeks then aborting it doesn't cause ANY physical or psychological pain. The only significance the baby holds is religious, spiritual significance. But it has no physical significance. I personally believe in spiritual worth, and so I am disgusted with abortion, but the people who think it's okay can do it if they want, but they should still be cast out of whatever religious community they follow, because they are directly go against God. So people should be free to abort 4-8weeks after pregnancy, when the baby only has religious significance, but then they should be viewed with digust by religion by having absolutely no spiritual regard.
Abortion is immoral even if the fetus cannot feel anything or understand anything. Saying that abortion is fine when the fetus cannot feel anything is saying that it’s life doesn’t really matter because it isn’t developed enough. I have mixed views on abortion in rape cases. I dont think it is right for a woman to be forced to carry a baby when she didn’t consent to sex, but I also dotn think it is right to kill the child because the child is innocent. I 100% agree that rapists should be either castrated or killed. I think that women who are raped need emotion support for their trauma. Abortion out of 50 years it was fully legal, it didn’t solve shit! Roe didn’t solve any issue regarding the foster care system or poverty or any other issues we have in life.
@@redtedgamer8692 Well I specifically said that a fetus has no physical worth if it cannot feel or think anything. The only worth it has is spiritual worth. So when you say it is immoral to kill a fetus that can't feel or think anything, what you're saying is that you can't kill a fetus because it still has spiritual value. But people who don't believe in God don't believe in spirit, so my point is that people should be allowed to get an abortion while the baby ONLY has spiritual significance, but they should be rejected by ALL religions
@@declanhugors regardless of what worth they have, their life matters and shouldn’t be treated like some trash to be disposed of. All humans have value regardless of what value it is. A fetus doesn’t have a feeling and understanding bc it hasn’t developed enough but that doesn’t mean it’s life doesn’t matter. That fetus will grow up and be able to live a life and meet people and do other things. Ripping it to pieces completely deprives the fetus of a future. It may not have physical worth but that doesn’t mean it life is not important or that it doesn’t deserve to live on.
periodt
it is not. MY BODY MY CHOICE
yes it is
That is true. Your body still has the choice to commit the immoral act of killing.
@@Thekomokoro Killing isn’t necessarily immoral though.