swstephe wrote:


This is "appeal to nature". Something is good because it is "natural". Nature assigns "fun" to sex, so having sex for the fun of it is natural and good, right?

swstephe wrote:

If the a fetus is not a human being, then there is no obligation to take care of it as a human being. It isn't that inconclusive. Most studies have determined that at about 20 weeks, (5 months), the fetus is able to meet the test of being a human being. It is that boundary that determines a "late term abortion" rather than abortions in general. If a fetus is a human being at time of conception, (actually, a "zygote"), then in-vitro fertilization would be equally immoral as the process creates dozens of "zygotes", all potential human beings, if not physically possible to carry them all to term, but most are destroyed.

Simon JM wrote:
Could you clarify what you mean by human being? I know in the academic lit it can mean both Homo Sapiens and human person depending on who is using it. I use Homo Spaiens and I know David Boonin and Peter Singer -among others- have no problem seeing the zygote as a Homo Sapiens

Simon JM wrote:
Or are you thinking that it is sentience that makes it a Human Being? Which surely cannot be true as many animals are also sentient but not considered human beings.

swstephe wrote:


I guess I'm referring to both zygote and fetus -- but I use the criteria of immediate independent viability and apparently voluntary response to stimuli. Using species identification is always a bit vague, but what we refer to as "homo sapiens" would usually do.



No, sentience or consciousness would also be extremely vague and unreliable to measure qualification for being a human being, since that isn't what is normally understood to be human. I'm always going through threads where people argue "X can't be conscious", when what they really mean is, "X can't be conscious exactly like we assume all humans are conscious", (even if they are not). That leads to "the hard problem", in determining whether smething that can't communicate experiences consciousness or sentience in the same way that we assume others do.

I know this brings up a few exceptions. A person who has fallen into a persistent vegetative state or a coma is generally considered to be human, although he might not be considered independently viable and incapable of voluntary responses -- and also not really sentient or conscious in the normal way a human is conscious -- so I have to make a distinction on whether such a state is common enough.

swstephe wrote:
"Appeal to nature" is a fallacy because it assumes one particular example is "correct behavior" because it is observed in nature and therefore "better". The problem is that there is a wide range of behaviors observed in nature. The bonobo, a human's apparent closest relative, is rarely shown in zoos because they are so sexually promiscuous and engage in sexual acts which definitely don't lead to procreation, like homosexual acts and sex play. It seems to function as a way to build social cohesion and hierarchy. You are faced with a dilemma, either "appeal to nature" is valid, in which case you have to accept pretty much anything that is physically possible is permissible, or that "appeal to nature" is a fallacy and doesn't necessarily say which behavior is correct. Besides, humans commonly engage in behavior which is not observed in nature at all -- and therefore is "unnatural" and apparently not "correct" -- like wearing clothes, using a toilet, and cooking our food.

You need a brain to make a purpose. A rock rolling down a hill doesn't have a purpose for rolling down that hill. An animal's private purpose for having sex is because it gives pleasure and fulfills an urge in their bodies. That the urge was naturally selected because having sex sometimes leads to procreation is an outside observation. Most animals probably have no concept that what they are doing will lead to procreation. They might see the two activities as being unrelated.

Even ignoring the naturalistic fallacy and accepting "perpetuating the species" as the existential purpose of human beings, overpopulation is more of a risk toward the human species than dying out because of diminishing birth rates. There are many areas of the world that are incapable of supporting human life with the available resources -- due to drought, famine and disease. Conserving resources would be a higher value. At 6 billion population, there is little risk that any natural disaster is going to wipe out humanity, unless it is a major life-extinguishing event. Even in that case, the "solution", is to simply colonize space, not to prohibit abortion.

In all this "perpetuating the species", I see a humanistic bias. Why are humans so great that they need to perpetuate even at the total destruction of other species. If it is purely an appeal to nature, all species would have a right to equal protection, even at the minor expense of limiting our own population. But eventually you are faced with a transition to humanistic fragmentation. We tend to value some humans more than others. Preferring those more similar to ourselves or those who are valued more strongly. Then you get into racist, moralist and religious intolerance based on the same reasoning. Each decision has an affect on the total of humanity. I think the first derivative of existence is quality of life and not just existing for the sake of existing.