336 Million

[Metsfanmax]

Hahah! Mets thinks killing a day old to one month old baby is not murder. I'd love to hear you trying to argue that in front of a judge after having murdered a newborn infant. Simply explain to the judge all this tripe you've been going on about how that new born baby is not really a person.

I'm sure the judge and jury will acquit you.

What an idiot. Note, I'm not talking about fetuses. You're talking about newborn babies and trying to convince people that it's not murder if one were to kill a baby.

You should probably look at the the 14th amendment, particularly the equal protection under the law clause. A baby born has the equal protection under the law as a full grown adult. Kill an adult it's murder. Kill a newborn baby and it's also murder.

And yet somehow you can't see that. Man, you are one deluded person. If you were somehow granted the power to be the absolute king of the world you'd be the most hated king ever to exist. You wouldn't sit on such a throne for long. And while you were being hung by the neck until dead your vain cries of "But! But! I know better than you all do!" would fall on deaf ears.
You are espousing evil deeds and evil justifications.
But, you won't see it that way, few deluded people ever do.....

No, I am not arguing that in the US, killing a month old baby is not murder. I am arguing it ought not to be murder. As I already conceded in this thread, it is unlikely that this will take hold any time soon in my country. But the practice of infanticide is not unknown in the world. For example, in ancient Greece and Rome it was common to leave unwanted children to die by exposure to the elements. In China and India too it has occurred in recent history, although the reasons are obviously different there. It is not obvious to me that we are more enlightened in this respect, but we are certainly more religious.

You take it as self-evident that killing a newborn baby is evil, and then therefore naturally conclude that what I am saying is an exposition of evil. But what is your justification for deriding this practice as evil?

[tzor]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time). It is wrong to kill a person precisely because only a person has those traits which we deem worthy of special protection. In this line of argumentation, many non-human animals are persons, but a fetus is not a person, because a fetus is not a self-conscious organism, and a fetus does not even have the neural pathways established to have sensory inputs like pain before 2/3 of the pregnancy is completed.

Interesting argument. So a person can feel pain? It's a crappy argument, lots of animals can feel pain, but then again most attempts at definition are crappy at best. (Lepers aren't persons I suppose.) Let's consult SCIENCE ... Mu ha ha ha ha. Can fetuses feel pain?

Free nerve endings, the “alarm buttons,” begin to develop at about seven weeks' gestation1,2; projections from the spinal cord, the major “cable” to the brain, can reach the thalamus (the lower alarm) at seven weeks' gestation.3 An intact spinothalamic projection might be viewed as the minimal necessary anatomical architecture to support pain processing, putting the lower limit for the experience of pain at seven weeks' gestation.

The first projections from the thalamus to cortex (the higher alarm) appear at 12-16 weeks' gestation. By this stage the brain's outer layer has split into an outer cortical rim, with a subplate developing below. The thalamic projections that develop from 12-16 weeks penetrate the subplate. Within the subplate, cortical afferents establish prolonged synaptic contacts before entering the cortical plate. The subplate is a “waiting compartment,” required for mature connections in the cortex.6,7 The major afferent fibres (thalamocortical, basal forebrain, and corticocortical) can wait in the subplate for several weeks, before they penetrate and form synapses within the cortical plate from 23-25 weeks' gestation. Subsequent dissolution of the subplate occurs through prolonged growth and maturation of associative connections in the human cerebral cortex.

Current theories of pain consider an intact cortical system to be both necessary and sufficient for pain experience.9,10 In support are functional imaging studies showing that activation within a network of cortical regions correlate with reported pain experience.9 Furthermore, cortical activation can generate the experience of pain even in the absence of actual noxious stimulation.10 These observations suggest thalamic projections into the cortical plate are the minimal necessary anatomy for pain experience. These projections are complete at 23 weeks' gestation. The period 23-25 weeks' gestation is also the time at which the peripheral free nerve endings and their projection sites within the spinal cord reach full maturity.1 By 26 weeks' gestation the characteristic layers of the thalamus and cortex are visible, with obvious similarities to the adult brain,6,7 and it has recently been shown that noxious stimulation can evoke haemodynamic changes in the somatosensory cortex of premature babies from a gestational age of 25 weeks.11 Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur (fig 1), good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks' gestation.

Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depend on the interpretation of secondary evidence. As discussed, neuroanatomical pathways necessary for processing pain, similar to those observed in adults and older children, could be in place by 23 weeks' gestation. The stereotypical hormonal stress response of adults or older infants, of about 18 months onwards, reporting pain is observable in fetuses at 18 weeks' gestation.12 Behavioural reactions and brain haemodynamic responses to noxious stimuli, comparable to adults or older infants, occur by 26 weeks' gestation.11,13 These and other observations (figure) are taken to suggest that the fetal mind can support an experience of pain from at least 26 weeks' gestation.8,14

So one can argue that in terms of pain, you could go as early as 18 weeks. But again, it's a crappy argument. Can we freely kill lepers because they can't feel pain?

The "pro-choice" and "pro-life" sides typically either debate about whether a fetus is a human (obviously a silly debate), or about whether it is always wrong to kill a human, but rarely stop to ask if a fetus shares the same characteristics that make a human actually worthy of something similar to the right to life. The answer, of course, is that they obviously do not. The only way to get around this is to make the speciesist assertion that humans are inherently worthy of the right to life; but there is no logical justification for this, and there are plenty of practical problems with this definition, as I can explain if you desire. It is unfortunate that the discussion isn't grounded on a sensible understanding of what makes killing wrong to begin with, because no one is likely to make progress when people can't even agree on the basic ethical principles involved.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

there is no logical justification for this

I generally don't bother to argue with a dalek.

and there are plenty of practical problems with this definition

No, it is always better to assume the best than to assume the worst. Sentient viability is always a good baseline assumption. If you make any definition that basically can be applied to any point of your history, that would have allowed your termination, then you are simply a lucky bastard and have no say in the matter whatsoever.

It is unfortunate that the discussion isn't grounded on a sensible understanding of what makes killing wrong to begin with

As I already quoted from Jefferson, it's based on natural law and inalienable rights. What part of that don't you understand?

[patches70]

No, I am not arguing that in the US, killing a month old baby is not murder. I am arguing it ought not to be murder.

It should be downgraded to what? Cruelty to animals?

LMAO. Ok, whatever.

As I already conceded in this thread, it is unlikely that this will take hold any time soon in my country.

Yeah, because the premise is insane.

But the practice of infanticide is not unknown in the world.

Yeah, no shit. And such things are despised by the most rational people.

For example, in ancient Greece and Rome it was common to leave unwanted children to die by exposure to the elements.

Oh snap, the Romans used to do as well as the ancient Greeks. They weren't the only peoples to do such things. But hell, if it was good enough for them, it should be good enough for us, right?

In China and India too it has occurred in recent history, although the reasons are obviously different there. It is not obvious to me that we are more enlightened in this respect, but we are certainly more religious.

Yeah, China and India. Maybe should move there, to be around people who think like you do. You know, they kill mostly female babies in India and China. Yes, they must be more enlightened than we.


If it's not obvious to you how morally repugnant murdering a helpless baby is, then I'm not sure any of your morals are worthy of even a shred of being taken seriously. You are one fucked up individual, that's obvious.

[tzor]

So you condone killing people who were born into a persistent vegetative state? Interesting. And it's not murder. How does that work? You can justifiably kill humans of all ages who aren't persons?

From a technical legal precedence point of view we always have Terri Schiavo through a lack of consideration of the case the Supreme Court has effective said you can kill anyone in a "persistent" vegetative state through starvation and dehydration. (Which would be an exceptionally painful way to die had that person not been in the vegetative state.)

[Metsfanmax]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time). It is wrong to kill a person precisely because only a person has those traits which we deem worthy of special protection. In this line of argumentation, many non-human animals are persons, but a fetus is not a person, because a fetus is not a self-conscious organism, and a fetus does not even have the neural pathways established to have sensory inputs like pain before 2/3 of the pregnancy is completed.

Interesting argument. So a person can feel pain? It's a crappy argument, lots of animals can feel pain, but then again most attempts at definition are crappy at best. (Lepers aren't persons I suppose.) Let's consult SCIENCE ... Mu ha ha ha ha. Can fetuses feel pain?

I'll highlight the relevant part of my definition of personhood that answers this point:

the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time

there is no logical justification for this

I generally don't bother to argue with a dalek.

I prefer Spock, but suit yourself.

patches: I don't see why my ethical theory should be discarded simply because I construct my theory starting from reason instead of emotion. If your argument against my theory is that "most people in the US don't see it that way," I am not interested. I am already aware of how most people in the US feel about it.

[PLAYER57832]

The Nazis also redefined murder to justify killing Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.

So that gives you the right to redefine "life"?

[tzor]

I don't see why my ethical theory should be discarded simply because I construct my theory starting from reason instead of emotion.

Because that is illogical. Reason is a process; it is not a "base." Nor is anyone starting from "emotion." (Human being are cute?) You start off with axioms and you work from there.

Natural law doesn't start off with emotion, nor does it construct its theory using (as opposed to starting from which I have pointed out is illogical) emotion, but reason.

The History of Natural Law

The origins of natural law lie in the thought of the philosophers and jurists of the ancient world. They were convinced that there were rules for human behavior based upon objective, eternal norms. They conceived of these norms as having been established by nature and human reason. The Romans were the first to coin the term “natural law”(ius naturale). Medieval and early modern jurists and theologians (Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish) found the idea of natural law attractive. It was congruent with their conception of the universe and with their notions of human psychology. Expanding upon and developing further the definitions of natural law they found in the ancient sources, medieval jurists and theologians placed natural law at the pinnacle of a hierarchy of laws that regulated and guided human behavior. Their paradigm held sway in western jurisprudence until the nineteenth century.

The Roman orator Cicero († 43 B.C.) summed up an important strand of ancient thought when he argued in his De republica 3.22 that “true law was right reason that was congruent with nature.” He concluded that “there was one eternal, immutable, and unchangeable law” and that God had established it as the Emperor and Master of all humankind. Later Christian thinkers incorporated Cicero’s conception of law into their own thought. The ancient Roman jurists dealt with two types of law that transcended the law of the Roman Empire, the law of peoples (or nations) (Ius gentium) and natural law (Ius naturale). In the second century A.D. the Roman jurist Gaius was the first to define the Ius gentium as having been established by the natural reason of all humankind (Institutes 1.1). Later jurists did not always distinguish carefully between natural law and the Ius gentium. This conceptual ambiguity would long remain a problem of jurisprudential and theological thought. In the third century the jurist Ulpian defined natural law as what “nature teaches all animals,” including human beings. He distinguished natural law from the Ius gentium that was common only to human beings and established by their customary usages. He cited marriage and the procreation of children as examples of natural law. Ulpian’s definition was later included in the Emperor Justinian’s comprehensive codification (ca. 533-536) of Roman law (Digest 1.1.3).

Medieval natural law provided the basis of all discussions of natural law in early modern juristic and philosophical thought. When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the ultimate origins of his ideas lay in medieval juristic and theological thought.

[Frigidus]

For the record, Metsfanmax does not represent the views of everyone in favor of allowing abortion. Just thought I should point that out.

[BigBallinStalin]

Therefore, if a PV human has been born that way, thus has never been self-aware at any time, then it's okay to kill that human?

I do not know what PV refers to, but if a human has never been self-aware and has no possibility of being self-aware in the future, then it is not murder.

So you condone killing people who were born into a persistent vegetative state? Interesting. And it's not murder. How does that work? You can justifiably kill humans of all ages who aren't persons?

A human of any age that is not a person cannot be murdered; this is a definitional argument, as I am saying that it is only murder to kill a person against their wishes. Killing a being that is alive but not self-conscious is also generally wrong, but the standard for justification is much lower. So I would condone killing a human (note that I reject your implicit assumption that this human is a person) born into a persistent vegetative state if there are significant reasons for doing so -- for example, keeping this human alive would result in substantial costs to the family of the child. Since this is usually the case, I would say in most cases this is acceptable.

"has no possibility of being self-aware in the future"
I don't get it. Why rely on this proposition? Any fetus has the possibility of being self-aware in the future; therefore, ..... ?

The proposition is relied on because it comports with our general intuitive understanding that a person should not be denied their rights simply because they are temporarily incapable of engaging in the behaviors that define personhood. On the other hand, while a fetus may at some point grow into a being that is self-aware, it has never been self-aware, so it is not a person.

From a more practical perspective, consider the comfort it brings to those who are currently alive. If I know that, upon entering a coma, someone could kill me while comatose because I was an inconvenience even if they knew I would later regain consciousness, my life now would be less comfortable as I might fear this outcome. My preference would be to remain alive so that I could one day be conscious again and enjoy life, and we should respect the preferences of persons. On the other hand, a fetus has never had the preference to remain alive, so it has not had any preferences that we can respect. By the time a baby is old enough to understand the abortion policy, it is automatically old enough to be safe from it.

Okay, this sounds all well and reasonable--if we accept your definitions of "human" and "person."

On this issue, I've found evictionism most convincing, which for the sake of argument holds that the fetus is human and a person. However, given the constraint in current technology, we cannot safely 'evict' the fetus at such an early stage, so the second-best solution is simply elimination--for the mean time. In the future, as our technology progresses---we can assume that removing a fetus and keeping it alive would cost very little, so in such a case, abortion would be wrong--given the availability and low-price of the substitute.

Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion on this topic because the definitions vary and are easy to reject, so the solution seems tenuous.

[PLAYER57832]

For the record, Metsfanmax does not represent the views of everyone in favor of allowing abortion. Just thought I should point that out.

Seconded!

[patches70]

For the record, Metsfanmax does not represent the views of everyone in favor of allowing abortion. Just thought I should point that out.

Lord I hope not. Abortion is the law of that land, that's that. But arguing that killing less than one month old babies isn't murder is nuts.

If your argument against my theory is that "most people in the US don't see it that way," I am not interested.

Yes, delusional people are often like that, they really don't care how anyone else sees anything.

You only think that you are correct. It's detrimental to the survival of the human species to regard our newborns as something less than human.

You are a full time student in college, correct?
If so, even if you have a part time job, you consume more than you produce. You can say you don't but you know that wouldn't be true. Therefore, at the moment, you are more of a burden on society than you are a boon. Thus, you are less deserving than those who are actually producing more than they consume. In fact, you probably don't produce a single thing, except idiotic ideas.

You would then argue that at some point when you are finished with school you will then be in a position to offer more to society than you take. At some point in the future, but at present you are a consumer and don't replace everything and more than you consume. Yet you are more deserving of life than a newborn, who coincidentally will at some point (hopefully) produce more than he/she consumes? But we don't know, just like you can't know that you will either, in the future.
You plan to, I'd like to think, but one can't be sure of that, can they?

Regardless, you and the newborn deserve to be equally protected. You should be given a chance to give back all that you have so far taken without replacing.

But if you go around killing babies, you'd be doing far more harm to society than any possible good that you think would come of it. At that point, your life would be forfeit. Since simply putting you into prison would consume far more resources than you could ever hope to produce at that point, the logical thing then would be to simply execute you.

Every baby you kill or advocate to kill is another less person who will be relied on in your late years to produce to care for you when you are again unable to care for yourself, as old age is inevitable to us all who are lucky enough to live that long.
Even when you are old and gray and not much use to society as you were when you were but a baby, you should not be simply exterminated. The wisdom you should have garnered through a long life would be enough to offset the costs you impose on society, if that society was wise enough to listen to it's elders.

You, are of the camp that does not care what those who are older and far wiser than you. So I expect, being the logical deluded person you are, that once you reach retirement age and are no longer able to produce squat that you'll off yourself so as to not burden the rest of us.

Logical indeed.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't see why my ethical theory should be discarded simply because I construct my theory starting from reason instead of emotion.

Because that is illogical. Reason is a process; it is not a "base." Nor is anyone starting from "emotion." (Human being are cute?)

DIdn't you read patches' comment? His argument seems to be, basically, that killing a baby is obviously murder because babies are helpless. While I grant that we are biologically tuned to feel responsive to the sight of such a baby, I deny that from this one can directly write down an ethical theory.

The reason I take exception to natural law is that it asserts that there are fundamental rights that are inalienable, but gives no explication for this assertion. This is substantially different from an ethical theory that starts with universal axioms that specific rules are then derived from. In natural law, the rules are themselves the axioms, which means that basically anyone can come up with any theory of natural law they want and no one can criticize someone else's theory except by disagreeing on the axioms. It is preferable to start with some more general assumptions and work from there. Then the debate generally focuses on how to interpret the consequences of making those assumptions rather than fighting about which assumptions to make.

On this issue, I've found evictionism most convincing, which for the sake of argument holds that the fetus is human and a person. However, given the constraint in current technology, we cannot safely 'evict' the fetus at such an early stage, so the second-best solution is simply elimination--for the mean time. In the future, as our technology progresses---we can assume that removing a fetus and keeping it alive would cost very little, so in such a case, abortion would be wrong--given the availability and low-price of the substitute.

Note that little of my argument has anything to do with the fact that the fetus is in a woman's womb. The fact that this is true is generally what lends the necessary justification to take the life of the non-person fetus. However, many on the pro-choice take this argument too far. The problem with theories like evictionism is that they aren't interested in being part of a self-consistent ethical theory; it's constructed just to answer the question of abortion. Similar, and presumably what Frigidus refers to, is that many on the pro-choice side just skip the formalities and simply argue that the benefit to the mother outweighs the harm done to the child. I assert that whether or not a fetus can survive outside the womb, it is still not a person, and that only personhood is relevant for determining whether a killing is murder.

Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion on this topic because the definitions vary and are easy to reject, so the solution seems tenuous.

I reject the claim that all definitions are easy to reject. I agree that most are, because they end up with things that aren't logically or ethically consistent. But it is quite possible to come up with definitions of personhood that defy an obvious rejection, and that is where the interesting ethical theory comes in.

patches: if you're not going to be respectful to me, I am not going to take the time to answer your comments.

[patches70]

DIdn't you read patches' comment? His argument seems to be, basically, that killing a baby is obviously murder because babies are helpless.

Did you read my comments?

The child, once born, falls under the 14th amendment, equal protection under the law. If it is murder to kill an adult, then it is murder to kill a baby.

You have already stated that it is murder to kill an adult, yet you ignore that legally a newborn child is entitled to equal protection as anyone else.
You say religion blah blah blah, but I merely point to secular law, the very law under which you live.
It's not my fault you don't understand the philosophical and moral reasons for that law. But that's your problem. Just as it would be a serious problem for yourself if you were to ever act upon your belief that killing a newborn is not murder.
Any judge in the country would toss you straight into prison and given your apparent remorselessness it would be a very long prison stint for you if not the end of your life in the electric chair.

[Metsfanmax]

patches, you can rest easy knowing that I have no intention of killing a newborn baby while it is illegal. I generally obey the laws of the USA, even when I disagree with them.

[patches70]

patches: if you're not going to be respectful to me, I am not going to take the time to answer your comments.

It is difficult to be respectful to someone who lacks all empathy, common sense and decency. It is difficult to be respectful to ideas that regress society to ancient times. It is difficult to be respectful to someone who doesn't even know the value of a life.

You ignore all jurisprudence, and attempt to misuse logic to fit your flawed world view. Not to mention you attempt to rationalize murdering newborn infants as not being murder. You aren't really worthy of any respect in this.

You have something in common with this guy-


That guy there is De’Marquise Elkins, a 17 year old boy. He is charged with first degree murder. He shot a 13 month old baby in the face and killed the child. And it's murder. He obviously didn't care too much about the moral or legal ramifications of his actions, like yourself. Would you like to argue that his crime does not warrant a murder charge, but rather something akin to cruelty to animals?

I didn't think so.

[patches70]

patches, you can rest easy knowing that I have no intention of killing a newborn baby while it is illegal. I generally obey the laws of the USA, even when I disagree with them.

But if it was legal to kill newborn babies you'd be first in line to slaughter them, eh? Just wanted to get the clear. You also wish to change the laws so that it isn't murder to kill newborn infants.

You can't see how screwed up your thinking is? Really?

Wow.

[Metsfanmax]

patches, you can rest easy knowing that I have no intention of killing a newborn baby while it is illegal. I generally obey the laws of the USA, even when I disagree with them.

But if it was legal to kill newborn babies you'd be first in line to slaughter them, eh? Just wanted to get the clear.

No, I would not. I don't want newborn babies to die, and it is wrong (under my ethics) to kill them in many circumstances, as I have explained already in this thread. I simply argue that in the case of a parent deciding that it does not want its own baby, it can be justified to kill the baby. A common scenario where I would find this acceptable is if the baby is born with a very grave illness that would lead to a life significantly decreased in quality compared to a normal baby.

As an example, if my child was born with Tay-Sachs disease, I would seriously consider ending its life rather than subjecting it to a few years of misery, if it were legal to do so (fortunately, this particular example is not a common scenario any longer because of prenatal diagnosis).

[patches70]

No, I would not. I don't want newborn babies to die, and it is wrong (under my ethics) to kill them in many circumstances, as I have explained already in this thread. I simply argue that in the case of a parent deciding that it does not want its own baby, it can be justified to kill the baby.

Like honor killings in Pakistan? Lemme tell ya, they stone people who are much older than newborns

A common scenario where I would find this acceptable is if the baby is born with a very grave illness that would lead to a life significantly decreased in quality compared to a normal baby.

Hell, we can go ahead and do away with all research on all manners of diseases if we would just simply kill every baby that was sick. That makes perfect economic sense! Don't stop at the babies. Cancer patients as well. Just off em, then we can not have to spend so much money and time trying to figure out how to cure it. Same with AIDS and virtually any life threatening disease.

And the best part about that is that we don't care if they are adults or babies! Just off anyone who gets sick enough to not be able to recover. While we are at it, we can save even more money and time by not treating any illnesses. If one isn't strong enough to recover from an illness on their own then why should society devote resources to keep someone alive who clearly can't survive on their own?

[patches70]

As an example, if my child was born

You don't have to worry about that. Just tell your serious girlfriend or wife what you really think about newborns. That they aren't people yet, and you won't have to worry about having a baby.

[Metsfanmax]

Hell, we can go ahead and do away with all research on all manners of diseases if we would just simply kill every baby that was sick.

It is not "our" choice to kill sick babies. It is an intensely personal decision on the part of the parents of a baby, and if they would prefer not to raise a child for a few short years of life in pain despite the (dubious) potential benefits to science of having another terminal child as a case study, that should be their choice.

This is no longer an extremist view. Many people would agree that there is a jarring lack of empathy in the decision to bring such a child into the world (e.g. one diagnosed with Tay-Sachs disease) if the disease is diagnosed early on in the pregnancy and an abortion can be performed. I advocate also that this choice should also be considered moral shortly after birth, as there is not enough of a substantial ethical difference between the baby inside the womb and the baby outside the womb.

[Metsfanmax]

Off topic, but tangentially related to some of the posts made by patches, is this interesting description of Chomsky's legacy in the Guardian:

But what is at play here is this destructive dynamic that the more one dissents from political orthodoxies, the more personalized, style-focused and substance-free the attacks become. That's because once someone becomes sufficiently critical of establishment pieties, the goal is not merely to dispute their claims but to silence them. That's accomplished by demonizing the person on personality and style grounds to the point where huge numbers of people decide that nothing they say should even be considered, let alone accepted. It's a sorry and anti-intellectual tactic, to be sure, but a brutally effective one.

[patches70]

haha, now you're the persecuted victim? Whatever gets you to sleep at night. You really should get some psychological help. You seem to be suffering from several symptoms of delusion.

[Metsfanmax]

No, I don't feel particularly persecuted, but it's some food for thought regarding how you ought to treat those with differing points of view. As was pointed out in the Guardian article, accusing an individual of being mentally ill as a method of silencing dissent against orthodox views is eerily similar to how the Soviets repressed dissent.

On the other hand, if you think America is really a safe haven for free speech, consider Peter Singer, the philosopher whose ethics I am closely aligned with. Singer has received significant persecution for espousing these views. For example, when he was appointed to his professorship at Princeton, the university received a significant amount of correspondence saying the university should change its mind (to its credit, the search committee and the university president defended the decision on the grounds of academic freedom). Singer and the university president received death threats for months after the appointment. Influential donors such as Steve Forbes withdrew their contributions to the university. A large-scale protest, in response to Singer's views on infanticide and end-of-life issues, was held and over a dozen people were arrested. And many more incidents like this have happened to him over his life.

[BigBallinStalin]

On this issue, I've found evictionism most convincing, which for the sake of argument holds that the fetus is human and a person. However, given the constraint in current technology, we cannot safely 'evict' the fetus at such an early stage, so the second-best solution is simply elimination--for the mean time. In the future, as our technology progresses---we can assume that removing a fetus and keeping it alive would cost very little, so in such a case, abortion would be wrong--given the availability and low-price of the substitute.

Note that little of my argument has anything to do with the fact that the fetus is in a woman's womb. The fact that this is true is generally what lends the necessary justification to take the life of the non-person fetus. However, many on the pro-choice take this argument too far. The problem with theories like evictionism is that they aren't interested in being part of a self-consistent ethical theory; it's constructed just to answer the question of abortion. Similar, and presumably what Frigidus refers to, is that many on the pro-choice side just skip the formalities and simply argue that the benefit to the mother outweighs the harm done to the child. I assert that whether or not a fetus can survive outside the womb, it is still not a person, and that only personhood is relevant for determining whether a killing is murder.

Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion on this topic because the definitions vary and are easy to reject, so the solution seems tenuous.

I reject the claim that all definitions are easy to reject. I agree that most are, because they end up with things that aren't logically or ethically consistent. But it is quite possible to come up with definitions of personhood that defy an obvious rejection, and that is where the interesting ethical theory comes in.

So, for the sake of clarity, why is personhood the only relevant factor for distinguishing murder from justifiable killing?

(I'm trying to get an idea of your foundational premises, upon which you build your stance).

[BigBallinStalin]

Off topic, but tangentially related to some of the posts made by patches, is this interesting description of Chomsky's legacy in the Guardian:

But what is at play here is this destructive dynamic that the more one dissents from political orthodoxies, the more personalized, style-focused and substance-free the attacks become. That's because once someone becomes sufficiently critical of establishment pieties, the goal is not merely to dispute their claims but to silence them. That's accomplished by demonizing the person on personality and style grounds to the point where huge numbers of people decide that nothing they say should even be considered, let alone accepted. It's a sorry and anti-intellectual tactic, to be sure, but a brutally effective one.

Does the quote describe Chomsky's tactics?