3RU7AL

Life and consequently intelligent life is perhaps, just a means to one end, whilst at the same time being a part of the means to an ultimate end and a new beginning.

That makes her time, labor, and resources subject to the jurisdiction and arbitration of the State.

No, it's not. Metaphysical objectivity is a consequence of logic, and has no form outside human rationalization.

The objectivity to which I refer is epistemological, and requires no preponderance beyond reason.

Your being subjective isn't a concern of lexical semantics, but a calculus of propositional logic. It's true by its mere statement, language notwithstanding.

The state obligates her to provide her time, labor, and resources to her infant. She may only relinquish this responsibility if only if she's able to transfer this responsibility to another (e.g. medical professionals, public servants, prospective adoptive parents, etc.) That makes her time, labor, and resources subject to the jurisdiction and arbitration of the State.

Doesn't mean you understand what I am talking about though. 

No, the State effectively controls the lands, roads, bridges, and the money. It does not "own" it.

She can only dispossess her obligation if she's able to legally alienate it to another...

The argument, "humans are subjective" isn't objective?

Why does the state get to compel those, but not her body?

The truth of moral propositions are contained in rationality and the standards of rationality are at least partially objective.

Objectivity for me doesn’t inherently entail fact. It just means there’s a common idea. An idea independent of any one individual. Does it make sense? 

You're not necessarily contradicting my point. You argue only that this arbitration is subject to the jurisdiction of a territory.

...the objective fact that most people are of the subjective opinion...

The first cause is the creation of the universe and GOD

Both of you have changed your’ positions on how to define objectivity, driving it to its extreme, with the help of my input. Don’t criticise me about altering language. ”Objectivity” for you guys now is essentially on par with ”God”. We can play defining games all day

I don't really want to continue this conversation. Next time I'll just go straight into commenting what I want instead of asking you questions in hopes to not require even more questions to understand. 

You’ve driven objectivity to its extreme.

So every thought you produce is first subject to bias/emotions?

Can any concept be objective (absolute)? 

Would you consider “mother” and “father” objective concepts? 

Can two or more people who haven’t meet each other, have the same opinion? 

OBJECTIVITY = NOT-SUBJECTIVE

MORALITY = OPINION

Okay, is this what you’re going to sincerely stick with?

Subjective = singular person, correct?

If so, then wouldn’t it follow:

Objective = multiple people?

A biologist stated Rhesus monkeys have blood types in common with humans. Are Rhesus monkeys human? 

When it comes to morality, “opinion” is fact.

Just as my favourite colour is red.

Is it quantifiable? Yes, to an extent. Brain imaging and what have you. 

Google’s definition of morality: principles concerning the d͟i͟s͟t͟i͟n͟c͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

I think we need to focus on defining objectivity and morality before moving on.

What does this mean?

Answer?

To the best of my knowledge. 

Are you telling what makes a human is their blood cells? 

From this I gather human blood tested by using anti-human serum which is gained by injecting the blood into rabbits and waiting a period of time for the antibodies to kick in. When that is done the blood is drawn then tested on human serum proteins to see if it clumping. If that happens it is human blood. Correct? 

I agree. I copied the definition from google. Do you have a definition we would both accept?

Are you suggesting that human survival instinct is "objective" (in your opinion)?

Yes. But in terms of morality I’d say something along the lines of maternal/paternal care.

Certainly.  Nearly anything can be considered moral or immoral by one person or another.  

The goal here is to identify a logically COHERENT moral framework.

First off, read the question again.

I’ll re-word it for you. Do you think an action can have both moral and immoral aspects?

Exodus 32:27

And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

Which contrasts to your assertion,

But I’m talking about the real world.

(Basically we're going to mess around and act like we're better than everyone else, for fun)

Do you think one aspect of an action can be considered moral while another is immoral?

That being said, can you give me the moral/synopsis of the story?

But there are some like the killing of family, friends, community that are “universally” immoral.

Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

A judgement influenced by genetics. 

"So, basically, there is not a lot of difference among the blood of different species of mammals. In order to identify the origin of a sample of blood, one would need to do DNA testing."

Is your claim DNA?

Because AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH IT BECOMES A CITIZEN WITH FULL HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

And this is merely arbitrary with no justification other than the law's being the law.

Are you asking for a study that proves that some cells are human and some aren't and that a laboratory can tell the difference?

I am asking for you to give me a study that scientists (or other standard) have stated a thing is human cells.

Once the baby is born, the mother can choose at any time to put it up for adoption.

I don't understand your confusion.

Yes by putting it up for adoption she ensure its custody to someone else, on whom the fetus depends for time, labor, and resources.

What if she just left it outside somewhere, or in her home without paying attention to its needs? That would be illegal because the mother is obligated to either provide sustenance or ensure that another custodian provides sustenance.

No such obligations are present or recognized between a mother and her zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn child. And that's inconsistent.

An appeal to motivation (amateur psychology) is a type of ad hominem attack.

It's not an appeal to motive because I'm not qualifying your arguments using your motives.

I'm not stating, for example, that you're wrong because you're copping out;

I'd be saying that you're inconsistent; and you're copping out.

Mention of your intentions are merely supplemental; not informative.

This is an example of the dime-store-psychoanalysis fallacy.

No such fallacy is logically recognizable.

Its physical dependence is analogous to the dependence an infant has on its mother's resources, time, and labor. She has a right to her body, but she doesn't have a right to the aforestated? How do you rationalize that?

Do you have a study or am I going to go to a scientist to prove your claims to be correct or wrong?

Citing "papers" IS AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.

Citing papers is supporting your claims.

Saying essentially go ask scientists and implying you would be right is an argument from authority.

I haven't shifted-the-burden-of-proof-to-you because, I haven't asked you to PROVE anything.

You serious? I asked a question. You gave answer an by saying go ask someone else and implying they would agree with me. You shifted the burden to proof to me to support or not support your claims depending on the results.

Please don't get hysterical.

I am serious. Do you have a study or am I going to go to a scientist to prove your claims to be correct or wrong?

Consulting a laboratory is a practical approach. 

Yes but do you think that is a reasonable request to me? I asked you a question and you said go to a lab and find out. 

The zygote/embryo/fetus is-itself less than 1% "father" and over 99.999% "mother".

Also, 100% of the physical risk of permanent physiological change and or disfigurement is borne by the mother.

If we broaden that which we consider parasitic, or even analogize, infants are no different.

They consume resources at the expense of their custodians. And those proportions need work. (I know you're attempting a conceptual rhetoric intended to reflect the proportions of labor and resources, but my point was about the genes.)

And you don't have to convince me. I agree with most of what you said.

But trivializing the life of a zygote/embryo/fetus is a cop-out.

It's also cognitive dissonance.

It's means to justify abortion,

...while also obligating parents/custodians to an infant's care when reflecting the logic back.

I reconcile the justification for an abortion by removing all obligation a parent has to its child. Anything less is contradiction.

Appeals to atrocity trigger a shut-down of the pre-frontal-cortex, impeding reasonable thought.

Does it, now?

If you are a perfectly isolated society, then you can do whatever you can convince the group is best WITHOUT FEAR OF LEGAL HAZARD.

True. But are rights merely legal privileges, or is there particular meaning in referring to it as a "human right"?

Yes.  For example, [LINK]

What moral economy did that reflect?

Interesting, your entire society is comprised of 11 males and only one female?

I'm pretty sure you're going to die.

Well, 10 of us will--maybe 9. But the point still stands.

You mean like the woman in your example?

Yes.

Everyone you fail to convince is a likely criminal.

That's not true. They could be indifferent, or impartial.

Can a society function with 49% criminals?  Probably not.

In the context of the U.S. two-party system, how would that apply?

But there are some like the killing of family, friends, community that are “universally” immoral.

A foundation of a common idea can be found in beneficial evolutionary adaptations that we all share.

History teaches us that treating people atrociously usually ends badly.

Wouldn't that suggest that individuals enforce their own rights?

HOWEVER, If you are within the boundaries of a larger society, then you may have to explain your actions to the authorities.

How much of that large society's consensus is enough, then?

CONSENSUS =/= 51%

consensus does not not equal 51%. And if my calculations are correct, my scenario conveyed a 91% majority.