I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment.
> we now have
> - birth control,
> - largely safe (for the mother) abortion
What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality?
> - Humans will still be driven to have offspring,
Demography in modern countries begs to differ, but that's only tangent to the topic.
> anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body.
Yes I agree. Everyone can make decisions about anything that is his/her as long as it doesn't affect others. Do you accept DNA to determine boundaries of bodies? Does the body that stops living by the medication have the DNA of the mother?
Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you?
PS:
> spiritual entities: Jesus, Peter
Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts.
> What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality?
The philosophy (and also practical issues as well) are not always so simple, so sometimes it might have something to do with its morality.
> Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you?
No, especially after I am born. If it was before I am born, then I am a part of her body and she has the right to do so, although that still does not make it moral.
> Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts.
They might not mean them as historical real people (which they probably were, although it is not 100% certain). (I cannot think of how to explain it better, but there is a difference.)
1718627440 says >I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment.<
Then by what right/power/means do you justify any "rights/rules" whatsoever, including justification to speak about the question?
You later mention "boundaries of bodies". Do you think having a "body" grants rights? What about a "dead" body? Should the dead vote? Perhaps you're a Democrat and think "Yes, my dead Democrat grandfather still votes (at least twice) every 4 years."?
1718627440 says >What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality?<
There has always been a clash between morality and science. Science always wins.
1718627440 says >
Do you accept DNA to determine boundaries of bodies?
For some purposes, e.g., medical, Yes. But for political argumentation no, b/c of twins, triplets,...,clones. Are all clones one "body" (they all have the same DNA)?
1718627440 says >Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you?<
I would have nothing to say about it!8-))
Without reference to some authority (God, Jesus, DNA, Cthulhu) you justify your arguments based solely on your existence. Nothing is added, nothing gained, no political insight or structures, etc. Of course you can believe what you want, but everyone else can do the same presumably. This is an unconvincing, empty argument and is dangerous b/c if someone wants to delete your authority they can merely delete you.
A nihilistic Hobbesian argument seems awfully close to the truth and, while some of us matter more than others, no one of us matters much.
1718627440 says *>>Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts.
So you believe the Romans killed Jesus and Peter??**
You claimed the mother has authority over the life of the baby, because its body is part of her. I don't think that is true, thus I quoted you a definition for body boundaries.
> There has always been a clash between morality and science. Science always wins.
Weird statement. There is a fight between a compiler and a memory model. The compiler always wins.
You claimed, because it is possible to perform abortion now, it should be moral automatically.
> is dangerous b/c if someone wants to delete your authority they can merely delete you.
Exactly the argument why "deleting" someone is immoral without pointing to religion.
> So you believe the Romans killed Jesus and Peter?
Yes? Palestine was a roman province, so only the procurator could order executions. Petrus was a roman citizen so could demand to be judged by the emperor in Rome, which he did, so he got executed in Rome.
> we now have
> - birth control,
> - largely safe (for the mother) abortion
What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality?
> - Humans will still be driven to have offspring,
Demography in modern countries begs to differ, but that's only tangent to the topic.
> anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body.
Yes I agree. Everyone can make decisions about anything that is his/her as long as it doesn't affect others. Do you accept DNA to determine boundaries of bodies? Does the body that stops living by the medication have the DNA of the mother?
Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you?
PS:
> spiritual entities: Jesus, Peter
Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts.