Toni Lavis. Are you familiar with the terms "ad hominem" or "red herring?" If not I suggest you look them up. The topic here has never been about ET, but about abortion and topics that relate to abortion.

On the other point you address. If you really don't know why killing humans is wrong then we have a whole separate issue here. Killing an innocent is considered murder. Don't ask for a further explanation as to why. If you need more of an explanation then seek the letter of the law. After all if you have no morals to protect the innocent from murder, then the legal punishments should be enough insight in light of your lack of good sense.

To David F.

The point about anger being a normal human drive is that it is also an impulse that as modern societies try to restrain. Like sadness, joy, hunger, sleep, and sex, anger is a normal human drive. It's something from an early age that parents teach their kids that their anger will not help the situation. Nor their tantrums. For a parent this comes in two ways. One is to love them when the child is angry and help resolve their issues, and the other is to be firm in their stance. "No means no," kind of discipline when a child throws a tantrum for not getting their way.

Now that we are on the same boat concerning normal human drives, can we continue? Or do you want to try and slander me again for no reason?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« The difficult question is whether and to what extent, is some soul identified with a fœtus … »

There is “falsifiable evidence” of the existence of a foetus, but not of a soul.

There is no consensus as to what a “soul” is supposed to be. It has meant various things to various philosophers and theologians down the ages :

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/

.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

« Interesting the way baby killers use the same deceit as the Nazis used with the Jews. Pretend they are not human and rename the obvious. Of course a simple 3d camera shows exactly what or whom is being butchered. Simple biology ignored »

I couldn’t agree more – but, I shouldn’t say the same thing about a zygote (fertilised egg), a morula, a blastocyst, or an embryo during the first trimester of pregnancy – which constitute the various cells, organs and human tissue used in the production of a “baby”.

The biological question you raise as to the precise point at which a foetus becomes a baby is not known. As it is a complex process, perhaps there is no such defining point :

http://www.livestrong.com/article/496324-unborn-child-causing-pressure-on-mothers-bladder/

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« Abortion is killing an innocent »

In the case of a legal abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy, that is a belief, not an established biological fact, Not_Now.Soon. There is no “falsifiable evidence” to substantiate your statement.

Also, as I presume from your previous remarks on this forum that you are a Christian, am I not right in thinking that you believe that all babies are born guilty as per the Christian doctrine of “original sin” ?

As a foetus is not baptised, do you not consider that it is guilty ?

.

Dear Banjo,

«There is “falsifiable evidence” of the existence of a foetus, but not of a soul.»

We could go into this if you like, but it is not needed for the purpose of this discussion:

Should no souls exist, then what could possibly be wrong about killing bodies: people, animals, babies, fœtuses, ETs, whatever? If all is just matter, atoms and molecules, then what possibly could be morally wrong about arranging them differently?

On the assumption of there being no souls, you cannot consistently claim for example for it to be OK to reorganise the atoms of a cockroach or of a pox germ, but not of a human.

Dear NNS,

Killing an innocent human being is not murder. Murder is a crime defined by law. If abortion is legal as it is now it is not murder. If abortion is made illegal and defined as murder under law reputable physicians will be reluctant to perform abortions. Rich women will still manage to get abortions. They will go where it is legal, pay enough to overcome a doctor's reluctance or get a surgical procedure such as a D & C which will have the same result as an abortion but is not defined as an abortion. Only those with less money will get abortions by the backyard butcher, but you have stated you don't want to bring back the backyard butcher. However, if abortion is defined as murder by law you will bring back the backyard butcher. Precisely what do you do you want to do about abortion? You cannot ban it without bringing back the backyard butcher.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Should no souls exist, then what could possibly be wrong about killing bodies: people, animals, babies, fœtuses, ETs, whatever? … On the assumption of there being no souls, you cannot consistently claim for example for it to be OK to reorganise the atoms of a cockroach or of a pox germ, but not of a human »

There is no need for a soul. It seems that the origin of morality can be traced back to primeval man even before he invented religion. What some anthropologists have suggested might be evidence of the earliest religious rite dates back 350,000 years ago, though this is disputed. Some researchers consider that abstract thinking only began about 50,000 years ago in modern humans :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2885663.stm

Dispositions to exert self-control, to defer to authority, to obey rules that uphold the social order, to punish transgressors, and to behave in altruistic and cooperative ways evolved because they helped early humans advance their biological interests and reap the benefits of group living. Old brain mechanisms that humans share with other primates engender primitive aspects of a sense of morality, such as feelings of moral obligation, sympathy, gratitude, guilt, forgiveness, and righteous indignation.

Psychologist Matt J. Rossano considers that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behaviour to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

The following article entitled “Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behaviour” appeared in The New York Times :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

As I indicated in my previous post, there is no consensus as to what a “soul” is supposed to be. It has meant various things to various philosophers and theologians down the ages. It is a relatively recent concept compared to morality that is shared by many animal species.

Like mankind, animals do not have a “soul” either.

.

//Are you familiar with the terms "ad hominem" or "red herring?"//

I am familiar with both those terms. I haven't used any ad hominems, and the question about ET is entirely relevant since it concerns the ethics of killing, and after all, isn't that what we're discussing here?

Or at least, trying to discuss, although you don't seem to be interested in holding up your end of the conversation. Why is that, NNS? Please, I'm curious.

//If you really don't know why killing humans is wrong then we have a whole separate issue here.//

Well, you certainly know what an ad hominem is.

Of course I know why I think killing people is wrong, NNS. So there's not really a lot of point asking myself, is there now? But I don't know why you think that killing people is wrong. That's why I asked.

//Killing an innocent is considered murder.//

Having an abortion isn't, according to the letter of the law. I guess that must make it OK then?

//Don't ask for a further explanation as to why.//

Why not? What is it that offends you so deeply about this line of questioning?

//If you need more of an explanation then seek the letter of the law.//

Oh? So the law is always moral then? But hang on, isn't abortion legal? And spousal rape used to be legal - was it ever moral? Was slavery moral before Abolition? Sharia law is a legal system; is it moral? I'm not sure that the law can be considered the best guide to what is moral - it is far to easy to find examples of laws which are or have been downright immoral.

//After all if you have no morals to protect the innocent from murder, then the legal punishments should be enough insight in light of your lack of good sense.//

[sigh] I see, NNS. Very well, if that's how you wish to be. There's more interesting ethical discussions on youtube anyway. Catch ya on the flipside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPsUXhXgWmI