But wait. You also said:

So which is it? Is it "always wrong under any conditions" or is it only wrong if the majority determines it is? You can't have both. Either they do determine morality or they don't. If they do, your first statement is logically inconsistent. If they don't, your second statement is.

For most of recorded history the majority clearly had no problem with slavery. So does that make it right or wrong?

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Try reading it in the English... stating that a society, by making something illegal is merely...(uh..hope this is not too great a leap for you....) making it 'illegal' rather than 'wrong'...well..
(Im sorry, but the rest of that sentence is just an unreasoned, disjointed gibberish wherein you lost me).

No, again your comprehension is failing here. 'In other words'...I find that I am unable to adopt as a moral or intellectual certitude any proposition of which I am uncertain, merely just to have a 'moral stand' handy to brandish...(good tip here) ...try using my own words...
Perhaps, some day...

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

This is the primary meaning behind everything I've been attempting to stand for here. But I think the trouble is that the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument polarizes and as a result many of the people who are pro-life are dead set against this idea or ambivalent to it. I think that this is more important than whether there is a law or not and should take the primary stage instead of being forced to the backburner by arguments over whether a fetus is a human or not.
But the other thing is that I still hold to it that a lose-lose situation does not produce good results. To some extent the education issue would resolve that. But it is of the utmost importance that the new mother be interested in raising the child rather than coerced into it. That is the only way she will grow from the opportunity and that we can maximize the amount of good that can come out of the child's birth.
I know you understand that economics is not all about material. We got into that before and you pulled the Salvation Army example. This kind of morality is created through very subtle social pressure or through empathy (which is guided by nurture but even more subtly). Empathy requires experience and understanding. Note that most aborters are adolescents (even the "adults" are usually in a state of extended adolescence which is the case for most college students or adults who never left the house) and have too little experience and understanding for us to assume empathy. Moral development takes an indefinite amount of time but most don't reach their peak until old age and it certainly is not an inherent biological trait. But rationality is universal and can help to condition people to moral behavior.
That is why it is important to remove the stigma from young girls who have kids out of wedlock. The child's birth will give the woman enough trouble. The stigma should be reserved for abortion and for bad parenting. I think the stigma is often the straw that breaks the camel's back, especially parental stigma (the reason why most aborters try to do it secretly and do it whether there are laws or not- parents are a stronger authority figure than the law and if their authority is based on fear more than respect- as in the bulk of these cases- the child will do whatever possible to avoid parental punishment).
The combination of education and unambiguous social stigma would do a helluva lot more good than laws. So why is that on the backburner of the debate? I think it has a little to do with the fact that the parents who make up the loudest and most uncompromising portion of the pro-life movement are the same parents whose kids would fear being disowned for having a kid out of wedlock. I believe that it is the parents of the aborter that are often at root of the problem.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

We know that it is impossible for us to think without a brain and a fully developed nervous system. However, embryos can be frozen and remain alive. Therefore, the rules that apply to us don't apply to embryos or to zygotes in that respect. Moreover, scientists can measure pain, reflexes and so forth, and they can measure brain activity, but they can't determine whether or not a being has a consciousness by your definition. You are claiming that only a well developed nervous system can produce any form of consciousness. Embryology, as this sort of science is called, cannot make any such claims, nor can other scientists draw absolute lines about which life forms might have some primitive form of consciousness. Weighted against that dillema is the fact that consciousness develops gradually in an unborn child and in human beings in general. Since we can't even define precisely what causes consciousness to exist, no evidence can be given to suggest that the unborn suddenly rather than gradually gain awareness of their surroundings. On the contrary, from conception, we develop gradually. So far, the gradual nature of this process has no exceptions, and again, a special and unscientific exception would have to be made for consciousness for your argument to be correct.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

You'll have to type it in English first.

Your implication was that each society defines what is right and wrong though. Either you are contradicting yourself or you are not explaining your position well.

You are uncertain as to whether or not killing an innocent person is wrong?

I would if I knew what the hell you were talking about. Is all that mincing really necessary?

It is both. The statements are not contradictory.

In the Pre-civil war south, slavery was accepted as moral. That society determined as much. That was the dominant morality at the time.

When I say is it immoral, I am making a judgement of them. in other words, there is an implied "IMO" included in the initial quote.

I just did.

By our standards, wrong. Since we are the dominant ideology (and they no longer exist) our standards are all that matters.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

In my opinion, two things have to change for abortion to end. First, society has to stop judjing single mothers. Holier-than-thou, hypocritical Fundamentalists actually increase the number of abortions and, of course, they are being cruel to these women regardless. Second, we have to be charitable and take the financial and emotional strain off working mothers. Donating time is perhaps even more important than donating money. Reliable day care can often be given by a trusted friend. I also hate seeing the way employers treat working mothers. They need to recognize that these women have more important responsibilites than making money to line their employers' pockets.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

You can be alive and not self aware. We've been over this already.

A Plant is alive, but is not self aware.

Yes they can. We have technology that allows us to determine what parts of the brain are active when we experience emotions. The technology actually isnt even that new...it has been around for a long time.

When you feel sad, certain areas of your brain are stimulated (active), and some are not. We have technology that can map this.

Then tell me where Consciousness resides if not the brain.

I have asked you this question repeatedly, and you keep ignoring it. Why?

Everything we assume to have consciousness so far has a brain. Now you want to make an exception. It is up to you to provide evidence to justify that exception IMO.

How do you know that plants and rocks dont have consciousness too? Using your logic, we have to assume they do. Right?

How did you determine that it developes gradually if you are saying it is not dependent on the existence of a brain?

Your logic doesnt seem to be based on anything. How do you come to these conclusions? Frankly, I get the impression you are pulling it all out of your asѕ, but I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Prove me wrong.

We can and have. You saw the definition yourself.

I agree. But you are making the claim that as a single cell we have consciousness. Prove it.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

'Mincing' for the one, perhaps, clarity for the others (you know who you are)...

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

For the past 3 days I've asked at least 50 women what they think of abortion, only 2 said yes. I also got a lot who agreed that there should at least be an age limit of 18.

An animal can't be fully unaware of its own existence and alive. I already addressed the fact that scientists can determine how adults have consciousness, but they can't fully determine how the unborn have it. My basic point is that the nervous system develops gradually. If so, some primitive structure for the later, more advanced nervous system must exist in a zygote. You are defining consciousness only in the precise form in which we have it, but that develops gradually from conception. Therefore, scientists can show when an embryo has our advanced level of consciousness, but they have yet to define exactly what that level develops from. You still haven't given me any reason to suspect that consciousness develops suddenly rather than gradually.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)