Why is it just for states to restrict the use of something like thalidomide if total autonomy is the justification for abortion? ...
Because it does have rights once born. Deforming it violated those rights.But why, if the fetus had zero rights when it was deformed, would it be unacceptable to have deformed it in the first place? You cannot violate the rights of something that has none.
Too bad. It's the only part of this thread worth debating.Again, that's not the discussion here. At least not the discussion I'm trying to have.
you are missing the point which has been explained multiple times by various people
it is future harm to a living human being which is being prevented, nothing more, nothing less
are you being purposely obtuse?No harm is being done to any future humans in this scenario. Only harm is being done to those without rights (supposedly). By the time you consider them to have rights, they might not have any pain at all. Missing an ear might not be painful. Difficult? Yes. But the harm is over and done with. No further harm is being done after birth.
Ok, so I'm wrong. Why is intentionally deforming a fetus morally acceptable?
are you being purposely obtuse?
Because it does have rights once born. Deforming it violated those rights.
Everyone always goes straight for the legality on this forum. Very practical I guess, but I'm looking for a more philosophical discussion.
IF abortion is acceptable, why isn't it morally acceptable for a woman to deform her fetus.
Everyone always goes straight for the legality on this forum. Very practical I guess, but I'm looking for a more philosophical discussion.
IF abortion is acceptable, why isn't it morally acceptable for a woman to deform her fetus.
It makes the pro-life side even more fringe. The pro-lifers that are pragmatic are drowned out by the fringe bringing up nonsensical topics. And with the traumatic decapitation transplant, the artificial womb as a replacement for abortion, and now intentional causation of anomalies of the fetus to make abortions "legal' when they are already legal at the stage where the anomalies would be caused......seriously I would like to get back to more pragmatic discussions....and they get less likely with topics like this. But like I said, go ahead....it just takes the discussions away from going toward common sense discussions that find common ground.
I've heard from some pro-choice people that a woman can do what she wants to a fetus because (among other reasons) a fetus has no rights. Including and especially killing it. If you aren't of this opinion, this thread probably isn't for you.
My question regarding this level of autonomy over the self and authority over the fetus is this...
Should a pregnant woman be allowed to intentionally cause birth defects? Why or why not?
Consider this: Thalidomide was a drug used to treat pain in pregnant women. When it was found to cause severe birth defects, the product was pulled from the market. Should a woman have the right to take thalidomide even though she knows it will cause severe birth defects?
If it is ok to kill fetuses, why isn't it ok to deform them?
Inb4youcantkillwhatsnotalive
This begs the question: "Why not? If abortion is morally acceptable for the reason that a fetus has no rights, why is it morally acceptable to destroy the fetus but not to deform it?"
The harm occurred before those rights were granted though. Yes, it will have rights if it survives, but the child wouldn't have had their rights violated at the point when those rights existed, so it seems like a moot point.
No. If it is aborted, it never had rights, never will and may as well never been conceived. If it is, however, born...well, then we have a completely different equation. Do we not?
If a fetus has no natural rights, why isn't it morally acceptable to do whatever we like to them, including intentional deformation?
Because that fetus will (most of the time) be born and then have to live with the deformities, ffs.
I do not believe in 'natural' rights. Rights are given. Animals do not have rights but it is immoral to abuse them, even when they are being raised for slaughter. Just because something does not have rights does not mean it's okay to mistreat it.
I do not believe in 'natural' rights. Rights are given. Animals do not have rights but it is immoral to abuse them, even when they are being raised for slaughter. Just because something does not have rights does not mean it's okay to mistreat it.
Because that fetus will (most of the time) be born and then have to live with the deformities, ffs.
It wouldn't matter if it is born or not since the harm occurred before the rights existed. You can't violate something that doesn't exist.
I do not believe in 'natural' rights. Rights are given. Animals do not have rights but it is immoral to abuse them, even when they are being raised for slaughter. Just because something does not have rights does not mean it's okay to mistreat it.
I don't follow. If animals have zero rights, why would you be opposed to abusing them? Why should laws protect them if they have no rights?
Absolutely, I can agree that that's part of why it's unacceptable. But what about if the woman intends to abort (independent of the deformities)? Is it morally acceptable for her to, after she has already decided to obtain a legal abortion, use thalidomide to ease morning sickness?
States have rights.
They can and often protect non persons.
why the hell would she do that...just get the abortion already, why would one take drugs to alleviate morning sickness? :shock:
I am beginning to think that other poster was correct
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?