[BRussell]

I hear this quite a bit. Is it true? I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually espouse a truly moral or cultural relativist view. In fact, aren't liberals the ones usually most up in arms about bad stuff going on around the world - Amnesty Intl. and all those types of groups?

And what does it really mean to be a moral/cultural relativist? Usually people use the phrase to mean "anything goes," as in "those liberals will let men marry their pets." That seems patently false, because liberals have values that are just as strongly held as moral absolutists, they're just different values.

Maybe it has a more subtle meaning: that there are no absolute, objective, verifiable moral or cultural standards, and therefore we have to decide them for ourselves rather than wait for them to come down to us on stone tablets. Isn't this what secular humanism is all about?

Just something I've been thinking about...

[nonhuman]

I believe in moral relativism as defined by your second proposal. So does pretty much everyone else. They just refuse to admit it.

[Doofy]

Liberal says: "moral relativism".
Liberal means: "hatred of the traditional moral structure upheld by whatever society they live in".

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Liberal says: "moral relativism".
Liberal means: "hatred of the traditional moral structure upheld by whatever society they live in".

Quoted for the sake of irony.

[SpaceMonkey]

I thought it was mostly like, tattoos are cool, but my dad won't let me get one.

[Dr Reducto]

Most American liberals still have a judeo-christian based set of morals, but simply knock out all the inconvenient parts of it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Liberals don't believe in anything. Just ask them. That's the beauty of being a liberal. You don't have to believe in anything at all.

They wait until the conservatives take a position on an issue - then they simply take the opposite side.

Being a liberal is the least amount of work you can do in your life.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Liberals don't believe in anything. Just ask them. That's the beauty of being a liberal. You don't have to believe in anything at all.

They wait until the conservatives take a position on an issue - then they simply take the opposite side.

Being a liberal is the least amount of work you can do in your life.

So who says life has to be hard work?

[dcmacdaddy]

If by moral relativism you means things like being opposed to the death penalty but in favor of abortion, then yes; This is moral relativism and the term applies to Liberals. Of course, I have yet to see Conservatives, who frequently advocate against abortion because they are "Pro Life", come out against the death penalty, which is the taking of a life. So, it would seem to be conservatives, at least on this issue, are moral relativists as well.

<Waits to be labeled a relativist for equating the taking of a life through abortion with the taking of a life through execution.>

I have friends who are opposed vehemently to government-sactioned death of all sorts. So, they oppose abortion, euthenasia, and the death penalty. It seems to me that that confluence of beliefs can be truly labeled as "Pro Life". As for me, I will stop fighting for abortions rights in this country, and advocate for its total outlaw, when the government outlaws any and all forms of execution. Then we can truly say we are a country that believes in the "culture of life".

[tie]

Conservatives believe in moral relativism. They're the ones always saying that American abusing or even killing prisoners is okay, because Saddam Hussein was just as bad. Or, let's do away with our freedoms, because Al Qaeda doesn't worry such niceties and this is a war! (more tax cuts please)

[macintologist]

Nationalists and religious fanatics are the ones whose moral compass gives a different reading when it involves their own kind.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

<Waits to be labeled a relativist for equating the taking of a life through abortion with the taking of a life through execution.>

Actually that would make you the opposite of a relativist.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If by moral relativism you means things like being opposed to the death penalty but in favor of abortion, then yes; This is moral relativism and the term applies to Liberals. Of course, I have yet to see Conservatives, who frequently advocate against abortion because they are "Pro Life", come out against the death penalty, which is the taking of a life. So, it would seem to be conservatives, at least on this issue, are moral relativists as well.

This is actually the opposite of moral relativism; recognizing these as complete opposites, IE: an unborn child is an innocent, and a person convicted of murdering several people isn't.

A moral relativism argument would try and equate unlike things for the sake of impacting a poltical cause. IE: a moral relativist aruments seeks to say there's no moral difference between a chicken farm and killing 8 to 10 million human beings. Therefore by eating KFC, you must be the moral equavilent of a Nazi manning the gas ovens. A moral relativist can't fathom that directly comparing the 'plight' of animal livestock to the enslavement of black human beings could possibly be seen as belittling to the aforementioned human beings.

Supposedly being "up in arms about bad stuff" as BRussel attempts to define moral relativism doesn't quite cut it either. A better example is being up in arms about "bad stuff" that really amounts to nothing more than a poltical disagreement, and trying to say it's the equivalent of Hitler persecuting millions of Jews. The 'moral relativist' concerned about 'bad stuff' sees no problem with belittling situations that are orders of magntude worse than anything they've ever in their worst imaginations actually encountered, by attempting to put them on the same moral plain with far lesser events stemming from poltical disagreement.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by BRussell

That seems patently false, because liberals have values that are just as strongly held as moral absolutists, they're just different values.

They're not just different, they have a completely different basis.

Conservatives and rightists believe in moral and unquestioned authoritarianism, while leftists, liberals and socialists (in part) believe in the establishment of morals using a rational, egalitarian and philosophically based framework.

That's why you have these constant discussions of what constitutes life, the existence of God, evolutionary theory etc.

Conservatives have recently undertaken (undoubtedly in their relentless effort to defeat liberalism) some efforts to establish a rational basis themselves, by greasing their spin-machines and coming up with ID theory, equating fetuses with grown humans (thus aligning abortion with murder) etc.

This is largely due to the fact that just about everybody these days has access to a wealth of information, forcing people "in charge" to have to justify their actions/beliefs.

The rest has become a seemingly indistinguishable muck of lies and spins.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

A moral relativist can't fathom that directly comparing the 'plight' of animal livestock to the enslavement of black human beings could possibly be seen as belittling to the aforementioned human beings.

And this is a picture perfect example of the authoritarian moral framework in action.

The basis - an unquestioned and untouchable dogma that humans are completely distinct and separate from other living species.

A moral absolutist (authoritarian) can't fathom that treating factory farmed livestock in the most sickening, barbaric and (excuse the term) inhumane way can EVER! amount to the same as treating humans in the same manner.

Why? – Because that's just the way it is, and that's just the way it's always been.

Comparing the atrocities of Auschwitz to todays factory farming and slaughterhouse practices is only belittling to the enslavement of humans IF you see the two as distinctly unequal and separate.

The same argument could be made in terms of the abortion issue, - though here the beginning of life (and of course spiritualism) play a more central role.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Comparing the atrocities of Auschwitz to todays factory farming and slaughterhouse practices is only belittling to the enslavement of humans IF you see the two as distinctly unequal and separate.

"The 'moral relativist' concerned about 'bad stuff' sees no problem with belittling situations that are orders of magntude worse than anything they've ever in their worst imaginations actually encountered, by attempting to put them on the same moral plain with far lesser events stemming from poltical disagreement."

Thanks for providing a ready example.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

"The 'moral relativist' concerned about 'bad stuff' sees no problem with belittling situations that are orders of magntude worse than anything they've ever in their worst imaginations actually encountered, by attempting to put them on the same moral plain with far lesser events stemming from poltical disagreement."

Thanks for providing a ready example.

Funny, 200 years ago your ilk would have made the same claim about African Americans when compared to "Whites".

Doesn't seem so plausible today, doesn't it Gumby?

Oh, and thanks for providing a ready example. Been to any slaughterhouses or factory farms lately?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If by moral relativism you means things like being opposed to the death penalty but in favor of abortion, then yes; This is moral relativism and the term applies to Liberals. Of course, I have yet to see Conservatives, who frequently advocate against abortion because they are "Pro Life", come out against the death penalty, which is the taking of a life. So, it would seem to be conservatives, at least on this issue, are moral relativists as well.

I've actually posted this stance on several occasions. I'm both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.

[Dork.]

To my understanding, there is a difference between secular humanism and moral relativism. Secular humanists may reject the idea of religious beliefs, but do still believe that objective truth and morals exist, even if they do not believe those standards come from any religion. For a moral relativist, however, there is no objective standard for truth or morality, and any action can be seen as "good" or "evil", or even "true" or "false", depending on the circumstances. I guess one way to look at is is that secular humanists still believe in something, even if it's not supernatural, while moral relativists don't really believe in much of anything enough to have it shape their views, i.e. the matter of what to believe in is never closed.
A side effect to this is the notion that you ought to be able to do anything you want if you're not hurting anyone. this is where notions like "marrying your pets" come into the conversation. That's an extreme example of something that doesn't hurt anyone else (except perhaps in psychiatry bills that our medical insurance system pays for after the nutjob who just married his poodle comes back to his senses).

Refresher courses:

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This may sound trite, but any progress that my own personal philosophy made toward moral relativism stopped and turned abruptly around on 9/11. We all saw evil on that day, and no one can convince me that under any circumstances, flying planes into buildings can possibly be justified on moral grounds. That doesn't necessarily mean that since we're in opposition to that, everything we have done is good -- but at least for me, it reminded me that absolutes do exist in this world, and our choices must be bounded by absolutes if we are to consider ourselves moral people.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

As for me, I will stop fighting for abortions rights in this country, and advocate for its total outlaw, when the government outlaws any and all forms of execution.

By that defintion you'd have to outlaw masturbation as well, since it also "kills" a potential human life.

And no, there is no "more potential or less potential" life.

The bottom line is, a 1 day old fetus isn't any more of a human being (by any rational definition), than any other cell.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

By that defintion you'd have to outlaw masturbation as well, since it also "kills" a potential human life.

And no, there is no "more potential or less potential" life.

The bottom line is, a 1 day old fetus isn't any more of a human being (by any rational definition), than any other cell.

Why would he accept the definition of "life" from one who equates slavery with livestock? I mean, isn't this another one of those issues where there will simply be no agreement?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Why would he accept the definition of "life" from one who equates slavery with livestock?

Because it's not about the person holding the "belief" but about the rational behind it.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I hear this quite a bit. Is it true? I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually espouse a truly moral or cultural relativist view. In fact, aren't liberals the ones usually most up in arms about bad stuff going on around the world - Amnesty Intl. and all those types of groups?

And what does it really mean to be a moral/cultural relativist? Usually people use the phrase to mean "anything goes," as in "those liberals will let men marry their pets." That seems patently false, because liberals have values that are just as strongly held as moral absolutists, they're just different values.

Maybe it has a more subtle meaning: that there are no absolute, objective, verifiable moral or cultural standards, and therefore we have to decide them for ourselves rather than wait for them to come down to us on stone tablets. Isn't this what secular humanism is all about?

Just something I've been thinking about...

I personnally find those categorizations tiresome. There is a distribution of attributes from one end to the other, but I doubt "conservative" and "liberal" are necessary the poles.

I think it is a convenience of language and cognitive interpretation that leads to such categorizations. For instance, are pygmies conservatives or liberals? Can we generalize the binary categorization to all cultures? I doubt it.

One can attribute only so much to other people, and reality bites back.

As for moral relativism, again, are morals the same from one culture to another? Or refusing that other cultures may have their own set of morals different than ours a way to reject them as "primitives" and see ourselves as "necessarily morally advanced"?

There are universals, of course; killing innocents is bad. But the sacrifice of the weakest to favor the survival of the group is expressed differently across cultures.

Let's take the example of the Inuit: sacrificing the elders was at some point necessary (there arte several stories explaining how wrong the idea is) when the game was non-existent.

Let's take what some people have said here about the Iraqi innocent victims of the invasion (now not all dead in Iraq were necessarily innocents: I am taking the example of the non-combatant victims). Some said that freedom has it's price, making the death of innocents acceptable if the greater number of them were to live "free". But what if they could all have stayed alive yet not-so-free?

We can go on and on in rationalizing the resons of some moral standpoiints, but the truth remains that the sacrifice of others is more necessary than the sacrifice of the self. So we remain in awe for those who died for others (mainly ourselves) but would think twice before going under fire for others.

Ymmv, of course.

[Dakar]

I find it hard to believe in morals being absolute, particularly when whatever morals the conservatives espouse today will no doubt differ in 50 years.

Marriage related morals alone have changed drastically in the past 50 years.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I find it hard to believe in morals being absolute, particularly when whatever morals the conservatives espouse today will no doubt differ in 50 years.

Marriage related morals alone have changed drastically in the past 50 years.

I think when you're talking about absolute morality, you need to start from basics in order for it to mean anything. A basic concept that translates across all belief systems is that the taking of someone's life without their consent (i.e. murder) is wrong. There might be situations where taking someone's life is done to prevent greater harm, and can be justified. But for a moral absolutist, it all has to be weighed against the notion that murder is wrong, and can never be right, it can only be justified. The "lesser of two evils" concept. A true relativistic approach must hold out the possibility that a situation exists where murder itself, not weighed against any other evil but the act itself, can be justified. And I simply don't buy that.

[Dakar]

Ok, so you're telling me there's something between moral absolutism and moral relativism? What would it be called?

[Saetre]

No offense to anyone here, but few of you even know what "moral relativism" is. Take Dorks advice and check out this wikipedia article. A lot of you seem to think that moral relativism means "moral hypocrisy". Others are just throwing around complete non-sequiturs.

Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To answer the original post, liberals seem to be a little more likely to be moral relativists than conservatives because they tend to be less religious. Religious dogma is usually formulated in a way that makes it incompatible with moral relativity. Still, most liberals aren't relativists because it's a rather arcane philsophical position and I don't think many people care enough about philosophy to pursue it. Most of the remaining liberals who do fully understand moral relativism will reject it anyway in favor of a non-relativistic position or a more reasonable cousin of relativism such as non-cognitivism or a form of moral skepticism.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Funny, 200 years ago your ilk would have made the same claim about African Americans when compared to "Whites".

Actually, an essential requirement of enslaving and even genociding human beings, is to have convinced yourself that they are no better than livestock. Exactly the position of "your ilk" TODAY.

Been to any slaughterhouses or factory farms lately?

Been to any genocides lately?

Is the main purpose of the worst possible slaughterhouse on earth merely to commit genocide against animals? Just because you disagree with something, or consider it 'bad' doesn't mean it equates with something that's far worse, that serves no purpose other than its worst elements. You're merely too shallow to understand this.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

A moral relativism argument would try and equate unlike things for the sake of impacting a poltical cause. IE: a moral relativist aruments seeks to say there's no moral difference between a chicken farm and killing 8 to 10 million human beings. Therefore by eating KFC, you must be the moral equavilent of a Nazi manning the gas ovens. A moral relativist can't fathom that directly comparing the 'plight' of animal livestock to the enslavement of black human beings could possibly be seen as belittling to the aforementioned human beings.

I believe the moral philosophy that you're referring to here is actually utilitarianism, not moral relativism.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by itai195

I believe the moral philosophy that you're referring to here is actually utilitarianism, not moral relativism.

You're probably right.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I think when you're talking about absolute morality, you need to start from basics in order for it to mean anything. A basic concept that translates across all belief systems is that the taking of someone's life without their consent (i.e. murder) is wrong. There might be situations where taking someone's life is done to prevent greater harm, and can be justified. But for a moral absolutist, it all has to be weighed against the notion that murder is wrong, and can never be right, it can only be justified. The "lesser of two evils" concept. A true relativistic approach must hold out the possibility that a situation exists where murder itself, not weighed against any other evil but the act itself, can be justified. And I simply don't buy that.

What makes taking someone else's life without their consent wrong? I mean it for the sake of this discussion. What are the concepts needed for making it wrong, and how do we position these concepts in the realm of absolute vs relativistic morals?

[Moderator]

Obviously everyone is a moral relativist...or there wouldn't be war. There is no absolutism don't be fooled.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I've actually posted this stance on several occasions. I'm both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.

Same here.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

By that defintion you'd have to outlaw masturbation as well, since it also "kills" a potential human life.

Not the same. Most people only consider such a thing happens after conception.

The bottom line is, a 1 day old fetus isn't any more of a human being (by any rational definition), than any other cell.

Why did you have to ad that "by any rational definition" bit? Is it to reassure yourself?

[D. S. Troyer]

Heh, I don't even know what it is.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Actually, an essential requirement of enslaving and even genociding human beings, is to have convinced yourself that they are no better than livestock. Exactly the position of "your ilk" TODAY.

They didn't have to "convince" themselves of anything, – that's just the point. It was the official "view" on things in the respective culture. That's the reason WHY it was possible to have these kinds of things happen in the first place.

The thing is, some people don't look down on livestock the same way people like you have for centuries, but see these beings as equal, and thus equal in terms of WORTHYNESS.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Is the main purpose of the worst possible slaughterhouse on earth merely to commit genocide against animals?

I'm sure the animals that are slaughtered there don't care. Anyway you wanna look at it, it's essentially meaningless and unnecessary killing that's going on.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Just because you disagree with something, or consider it 'bad' doesn't mean it equates with something that's far worse, that serves no purpose other than its worst elements.

And just because you "consider" something "far worse" than something else, doesn't actually mean that the beings which these horrendous atrocities are committed against would care.

Wether I shoot somebody out of rage or with the intent to rob them doesn't really matter to the victim, the bottom line is – they are dead.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You're merely too shallow to understand this.

No, actually you're the one who's simply too shallow to grasp the simplest tenets of respect towards all living beings. Doesn't surprise me though, most people like you don't.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not the same. Most people only consider such a thing happens after conception.

Yes, it is the same (from a scientific and philosophical point of view at least). And as long as that's the case, I couldn't care less what "most people think" (if that's even the case).

Want to enlighten us with your theory as to what makes a 1 day old fetus more of a POTENTIAL human being than a "sperm"?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why did you have to ad that "by any rational definition" bit? Is it to reassure yourself?

No, it's to point out that people with an irrational belief in spiritualism might have a different belief as to what constitutes being "human". But you already knew this, didn't you?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Want to enlighten us with your theory as to what makes a 1 day old fetus more of a POTENTIAL human being than a "sperm"?

Sure, the act of conception makes the difference.

No, it's to point out that people with an irrational belief in spiritualism might have a different belief as to what constitutes being "human". But you already knew this, didn't you?

Why did you have to ad that "irrational belief" bit? Is it to reassure yourself?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sure, the act of conception makes the difference.

How so? The male sperm is still an absolutely ESSENTIAL ingredient in "making" a human being.

Or are you saying "in vitro" babys aren't huamn beings?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Is it to reassure yourself?

No, it's to make you post weak and meaningless ad-hominems. Seems to work quite well.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

They didn't have to "convince" themselves of anything, – that's just the point. It was the official "view" on things in the respective culture. That's the reason WHY it was possible to have these kinds of things happen in the first place.

The thing is, some people don't look down on livestock the same way people like you have for centuries, but see these beings as equal, and thus equal in terms of WORTHYNESS.

So let's take your lack of logic to it's full conclusion; if you were stranded and starving (which you most certainly would be if not for other humans providing for you, and yes, domesticating animals in the process) and the choice was between killing and eating animals, or killing and eating humans, in your silly little world, you could choose either as suited your whim? After all, both are "equal", right? Or you'd pretend you'd just starve rather than save yourself?

I'm sure the animals that are slaughtered there don't care.

Why not go ask them? Get back to us on what they tell you.

Anyway you wanna look at it, it's essentially meaningless and unnecessary killing that's going on.

No, that's just your shallow way of looking at it from your little soapbox. Meanwhile, back in the real world, millions of people (including yourself) would/would have simply starved to death without other people providing them with food.

Sorry you watched some little documentary that ruined your fantasy that meat, fish, poultry or dairy products came from some happy happy little McDonaldland with singing cartoon characters.

And just because you "consider" something "far worse" than something else, doesn't actually mean that the beings which these horrendous atrocities are committed against would care.

You're the one talking to chickens and cows about what they "care" about. Back in reality, human suffering at the hands of people who can't seem distinguish them from animals (a warped mindset you seem to hold facets of) is the greater problem.

No, actually you're the one who's simply too shallow to grasp the simplest tenets of respect towards all living beings. Doesn't surprise me though, most people like you don't.

ALL living beings is it now? So you'd let cockroaches and vermin to swarm your house out of "respect for their feelings" rather than eradicate them? But if you did lift a finger, does that mean you'd also be capable of eradicating humans that inconvenience you as well? Same difference, right?

I dunno if liberals are "moral relativists" or not, but most certainly some of them mount the dippiest “moral equivalence” arguments.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Liberal says: "moral relativism".
Liberal means: "hatred of the traditional moral structure upheld by whatever society they live in".

So why don't you eat meat?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

How so? The male sperm is still an absolutely ESSENTIAL ingredient in "making" a human being.

I don't think anyone is arguing that any ingredient used to make babies is sacred. If there is, I am not.

No, it's to make you post weak and meaningless ad-hominems. Seems to work quite well.

I am not posting ad-hominems. I am curious as to why you constantly post defensive comments even before anyone has made any objections.

That is all.

I've asked it before without any real answer. Still haven't got one.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Or you'd pretend you'd just starve rather than save yourself?

Well, the short answer would be, - ask me again when I'm "stranded. Until then, I'm doing quite well without consuming dead animals (as I have for the last 6 years).

Strange that, eyh?

/And just in case you're going to try to make another dim-witted point – if my life depended on it, I'd eat meat. Until then, I would rather do without, thank you.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Why not go ask them? Get back to us on what they tell you.

Pffff. Yeah, I'm sure those cows are just thrilled about being slaughtered for our greedy and selfish diatary choices.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Meanwhile, back in the real world, millions of people (including yourself) would/would have simply starved to death without other people providing them with food.

Errr, what does that have to do with anything, – I'm pretty sure even somebody like you could come up with a more imaginative retort.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Sorry you watched some little documentary…

Huh. Forget to take your meds today?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

So you'd let cockroaches and vermin to swarm your house out of "respect for their feelings" rather than eradicate them?

I don't have any cockroaches in my household, and if I did and they'd threaten my life or well being, I'd deal with them them in the same way I'd deal with vermin of the human variety.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

But if you did lift a finger, does that mean you'd also be capable of eradicating humans that inconvenience you as well?

Inconvenience? No. Threaten my life or well being, – yes.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I dunno if liberals are "moral relativists" or not, but most certainly some of them mount the dippiest “moral equivalence” arguments.

Actually, judging from your posts and general level of comprehension, "dippy" is a term that best describes you.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't think anyone is arguing that any ingredient used to make babies is sacred.

That's just the point. An early term fetus is no more a baby than a sperm. The act of conception is completely irrelevant here, since you can quite successfully clone human beings already.

Are you saying cloned babys shouldn't have the same rights as "naturally conceived" ones?

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am curious as to why you constantly post defensive comments even before anyone has made any objections.

I wasn't being "defensive" at all.

Do you have a problem with your views being "irrational"?

[Eug Wanker]

I believe:

Some people just have too much fascination with the label "liberal" (or "conservative" for that matter).

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

An early term fetus is no more a baby than a sperm.

Sure it is. And I'm talking scientifically, not politically.

An early term fetus has all the genetic material necessary to grow into a normal full-term baby. A sperm doesn't.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

An early term fetus has all the genetic material necessary to grow into a normal full-term baby.

So does a sperm, taking into consideration that an early term fetus can't grow into a full term baby on itself (regardless of genetic material)

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

So does a sperm, taking into consideration that an early term fetus can't grow into a full term baby on itself (regardless of genetic material)

A sperm does not have the necessary genetic material. That is scientific fact.

ie. Even given perfect gestational conditions, a sperm will remain a sperm.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Even given perfect gestational conditions, a sperm will remain a sperm.

And without adequate gestational conditions, an early term fetus can not develop into a baby, and will remain a fetus.

It basically boils down to what you focus on.

Making a moral argument on the basis of potential genetic material is arbitrary at best. Right now, of course, you can have your neat little definition, but it won't last very long.

The bottom line is, for all intents and purposes, a sperm is no more a human being than a one second old fetus.

But if you wanna go down the genetic material road…go right ahead.

/I'll be here for a while.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

And without adequate gestational conditions, an early term fetus can not develop into a baby, and will remain a fetus.

It basically boils down to what you focus on.

Making a moral argument on the basis of potential genetic material is arbitrary at best. Right now, of course, you can have your neat little definition, but it won't last very long.

The bottom line is, for all intents and purposes, a sperm is no more a human being than a one second old fetus.

But if you wanna go down the genetic material road…go right ahead.

/I'll be here for a while.

I'm not talking about moral arguments. I'm talking about science.

Scientifically, the suggestion that a sperm is essentially equivalent to an early term fetus in terms of development is just ludicrous.

You're the one making moral arguments. I will gently suggest that your moral arguments won't get very far with many scientists if you're going to make bizarre suggestions like you already have.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

You're the one making moral arguments. I will gently suggest that your moral arguments won't get very far with many scientists if you're going to make bizarre suggestions like you already have.

Okay, I'll give you this, from a scientific point of you it's rather "useless" to adopt an unorthodox focus on classification, and there is a bit of polemics involved in my argument.

I know that science has a lot to do with identifying, naming and classifying in order to make deductions and formulate thesis.

But in a day and age, where people are actually thinking about charging folks with double homicide when they kill a pregnant woman, or liken abortion to murder ON THE GROUNDS THAT A FETUS HAS ALL THE GENETIC MATERIAL NECESSARY TO DEVELOP INTO AN ADULT, we'd do well, even if only in this instance, to not let science become an agent for moral justification and judgementalism.

Wether something is ludicrous or not might be up for debate. But when people go to the extremes in order to legislate their morality, I feel it's my right to adopt the same "extreme" position on scientific observation. At least until common sense prevails.

And until then, to me, a sperm is basically the same as an early term fetus.