The operative word is "exists". I would say it exists in nature, but it's not grounded in nature. In other words without nature, morals would still exist since they are defined by a supernatural GPB.

As a side note even if moral values were grounded in nature, I don't see 1) why we have any obligation to follow them or 2) even if we did follow them, why any set of moral values (good, evil) should be followed over another.

I guess my problem with purely-natural morality is this: We cannot derive an ought from an is. The description of nature, even a description containing moral values, does not in any way allow us to draw from it a prescription of what we should do.

It's not a sentient being.

I never disputed this. I asked if, on your view, the retarded, senile, and comatose are all in the same boat as fetuses as none of them are self-aware and some are not feeling.

It is the woman's body.

It's a separate human life form inside the woman's body, but it in no way is a part of her body. In the same way a splinter is in my body but not a part of my body. The fetus is not an organ of the mother.

It is none of your business what another does with their body.

It is in the case of depriving someone else of their rights, like murder.

Only religious superstition.

I haven't once made a religious statement here. I've only given statements from biology.

One of the reasons your religion is so evil and dangerous when weilded by most of you, you cannot even see your own totalitarian views on morality should you be given enough power in any situation to control others, and you will literally make-up bullshit like your argument to justify it.

Cool red herring and ad hominem.

If god doesn't like it let him come tell people otherwise. Until then tell your fellow christians to stop with the abortion doctor death threats and scaring girls on their way to clinics.

Only if you actually answer the one question I've asked and stick with biology instead of emotion.

If god is all powerful he's killing more fetuses than every abortion doctor combined.

You really enjoy ruddy fish.

So can I get an answer to my question up top now?

I value them equally. I think they are all individual human beings, deserving of any rights and protections any other human beings get.

Sorry I'm not used to the formatting here. Thanks for the tip.

I think it's quite obvious that once the umbilical cord is cut, it is independent of its host.

Not at all. The baby still cannot feed itself. Left alone it will die, unlike even an older child who could forage for food. Newborns and young children have no such ability.

Well, so will anything. I don't see what relevance this poses.

Not true. Older children and adults can survive on their own. They can gather their own food and water and find or make shelter.

Yes, but it isn't a fetus then. I'm not a 13 year old fetus.

You are, in the same way I'm a 22 year old child. These are just names we give to certain stages of our growth. The point is that while we have different titles for different stages of life, all of those titles are still titles of humans. The difference between a child and an adult is stage of development, as is the difference between a fetus and adult.

But at this point, it's extremely difficult to say that it is truly human.

It fits the biological definition of life and has an individual human genetic code. It is biologically classified as an individual human being.

A fetus cannot do this, thus scientifically, it is not fully human.

Neither can a child nor someone who is asexual by defect. Are they not fully human on your view?

But she can't reproduce asexually, right?

Her cells reproduce like everyone else's. She cannot, however make another human life through sexual reproduction. Think of it this way: She's a human female who has a hormone abnormality such that she has no womb or vagina. She is incapable of ever having a child because she lacks these necessary reproductive parts.

I for one, would be seething if I had given that man perks for doing absolutely nothing builderly-like whatsoever. And I would also be incensed if I had to give full human rights to something that isn't human yet, just "working on it."

Your analogy doesn't represent what's going on. Let's move from redesigning a kitchen to building a house. The same scenario happens, and you come in asking what he's done with the kitchen. He says he's done nothing with the kitchen yet, however he's laid the foundation and started constructing the walls. It would be silly to expect a fetus to make reproductive organs before other things like a heart, skin, etc.

A newborn is independent of its host. A fetus is not able to be until the third trimester.

See first point.

But it's not the mother's fault she was raped. The rapist had no right to harm her.

You're right. However that in no way gives her the right to harm the baby. That's like stealing someone's wallet because someone else stole yours - it makes no sense.

The right to choose what she does with her body.

But she's not killing her own organ. She's not getting an ear pierced or anything. She's choosing what to do with the baby's body, not hers. She's killing the individual life inside her, not one of her own organs or tissues.

The right to choose.

To choose what, though? To end the life of another who has not wronged anyone? Isn't that the very definition of murder? I agree the mother should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body, but the baby is not a part of her - it's just geographically located in her for the time being.

I must say, that was a very refreshing and innovative take on the question.

Thank you.

[Thanks for clarifying.]

Morality, if we ought to follow it, must come from an issuer of value which is the very definition of moral perfection. The only way to do this, as far as I can see, is to posit a God of infinite worth whose nature is the very definition of morality.

When I say God, I don't want to get into the specifics of any particular religion (though of course I have my own belief system). I simply mean the God of classic monotheism (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, morally perfect, and personal).

Outside of such an issuer of moral values and duties, I don't see why we -should- do anything. Everything is permitted because in the end there is no one to hold us accountable and there is no ultimate justice. Live whatever way makes you happy, since tomorrow you die. And don't worry about others along the way because they are as valueless as you.

1. Haha.

2. Just as Moses called for repentance before seeing that there were still rebels left.

3. That's very presumptuous. Given the danger that the rebels posed to Israel both physically and spiritually, and given that they were living under a theocracy where such a thing was treason, and given that there was a call to repentance (meaning those left were hellbent on being rebels), it was appropriate.

4. I could, but it would take too much room on this medium. Give me the benefit of the doubt for now and read a book I just suggested to another gentleman here called "Is God a Moral Monster?"

5. I'm saying that God (morally perfect) ordering evil (not permitting, but prescribing) evil is an illogical statement. If YHWH did in fact order moral evil, then it follows YHWH is not God, but that's another issue. I'll go into the problem of evil (logical and probable versions) when I respond to the main topic if you want.

6. For most of those, please read the book I mentioned. Briefly on some others: Flood - Noah and his family were the only ones who followed God and everyone else would not turn from evil; Plagues - These happened because the Pharaoh went back on his word to let the Israelites go free and because the court magicians challenged YHWH (through Moses); Sodom and Gomorrah - YHWH said He would spare the entire city for 10 righteous peoples' sake, but there weren't even 10 to be found.

It is off-topic and too long at this point. I'll respond to the main topic next.

1. Red herring.

2. The point wasn't that 3000 is an objectively small number, but that 3000 is a small number in comparison to the larger body. The point was that they only killed those fervent to the worship of the idols.

Their crime was to abandon God and cause other people to fall into idolatry. Remember Israel was a theocracy at this time, so what they did was commit treason. They became the equivalent of an uprising guerrilla group today.

3. These are the same people who followed him out of Egypt, walked through the parted Red Sea, depended on YHWH for daily food and water, etc. Plus they actively rebelled by making idols and having a feast to celebrate it. I think they knew exactly what they were getting into. Notice again that the only ones killed were those who did not repent of worshiping the idols.

4. Nice ad hominems, but ok. Your scenario is completely different from what went on. You're not under a theocracy (you live in the US), the people you killed were not staunch rebels after choosing to live in your (non-existent) theocracy, Moses never called for conversion of random people but repentance of people under the theocracy.

Again you're getting too emotional here. Try reading some historical commentary on this instead of trying to understand it from a 21st-century American perspective. There's a book that came out last year called "Is God a Moral Monster?" Spend a day at a bookstore reading it. But please leave the emotional presuppositions and lack of context at the door.

1. At this point in the baby's life, it does. The fetus is an individual human. A fetus is just a term for a body in the womb of a mother.

2. It is a collection of human cells with a different genetic code than the mother. It is alive and an individual. Again there are people born who are never self-aware, some who never feel, so on your view are they not people? The fetus may be dependent on the mother for survival, but so is a newborn, so is an infant, and so is a child. These are all different stages of development of an individual human being. It's not like the fetus is an organ of the mother - it is an individual human life.

3. By all biological definitions it's an individual humans. I could say you're giving me your own personal misguided feelings; it gets us nowhere. Let's stick with medical facts.

4. Again hair and nails are not individual humans - they're part of you. In the case of abortion it is killing the entire organism, akin to poisoning you to death. Not your nails or hair, but your entire self. If self-awareness is the test of personhood, again that advocates the killing of the retarded, comatose, and senile elderly. Moss and insects are a red herring.

You're getting too emotional with the argument. I don't have to be omniscient to know that it is wrong to murder innocent human beings because they inconvenience you. The fetus is a separate human life and deserves protection if any human deserves protection.

Also you don't make a distinction between killing something and that thing dying of natural causes? Really?

1. Newborns are not independent of their natural host. Left alone they will die of thirst. Just as people who are comatose can again become independent with time, a fetus can become independent if it is given the time to mature into a child and then an adult.

2. Again there are people with brain damage who will never be able to do these things, given any amount of time. However most fetuses will be able to if given time (they grow into children and then adults). You're looking at a fetus as a separate entity from a human, but it is just the beginning growth stage of a human.

3. A fetus can do these things once it grows to be a child. Just as a child can do more things once it becomes an adult.

4. If this were the case, you'd be dead in a few hours. Your body is constantly reproducing cells to replace dying ones. Sexual reproduction is a very tiny, tiny percentage of the reproduction the human body is engaged in.

5. I have a friend who is asexual due to a birth defect where her womb never developed. I don't think this in any way excludes her from being a human. A child cannot sexually reproduce because their organs have not come to maturity yet. A fetus cannot sexually reproduce because it has not begun developing sexual organs yet (but it has the DNA plans to and is working on it). Newborns certainly don't have all the biological features of an adult - how does this affect their humanity?

6.1 - Nay. It is not the baby's fault that the mother was raped, so she has no right to harm it.

6.2 - Nay. This is unfortunate, but if it is not life-or-death, how is there any justification in killing the baby?

6.3 - Nay. Again this is unfortunate, but how can we presume to know if the baby wants to live or not? If this were acceptable, the retarded, disfigured, and elderly people could be killed along the same line of reasoning.

6.4 - Nothing, read my response to this: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Would_You_Kill_1_person_to_Save_the_lives_of_2_others_assuming_everything_is_equal#arg224482

"By the way, the punishment for rape in the Bible is having to marry your victim. What an awful punishment!"

This was only the case if the victim and her father agreed to the marriage. It would be hard for the woman to marry anyone if she was not a virgin because of the customs and laws at the time, and marriage was for family, not love. Under the law there was no possibility of him divorcing her, so she got someone to provide for her for the rest of her life and to take care of her parents when they got too old to work. Plus the man had to pay the family silver as a fine.

A free ride for the rest of her life and insurance for the family at the expense of the rapist's entire rest of his life. Seems like a fitting punishment to me.