George_Washington
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Caine said:Because the Baby would suffer more without the mother.
It can't survive without its mother, and im not speaking in terms of living in crazy scientifically designed places made to simulate everything the mother's womb has, I mean, its not like I forget to pull out and suddenly an egg falls out and can develop on its own without its mother.
Thats why, a fetus isnt a human being, its a fetus, thats why its called a fetus.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:It is disutilitous for a being which has attained moral personhood to be forced to house a parasite within its body against its will. There is no "right" to use someone elses body that comes with moral personhood. Even if we were to assume that a fetus is a moral person, which it isn't, it is still irrelevant, because the right to life does not entail the right to life at any cost. You don't have the right to live by sharing someone's body. Said rationally autonomous host is perfectly justified in cutting you off.
Conclusions: One major conclusion of the above criteria is that being human is not what makes us valuable; what makes us human is valuable. This is independent of species, because it is quite possible that other species exist that have the same qualities, although they are not human. Consequently, these characteristics, to some degree, are also present in various other organisms, although not to the same degree as in humans. However, the logical conclusion of the position is that regardless of species, one should treat two beings with equal consideration given that they have rough or equal parity in terms of personhood or preference satisfaction. If one being does not meet the criteria for moral personhood and never will, or has, but never will again, but the other does or will, then the former actually has less value prima facie than the latter.
IE. A human adult in good health has more value than many other animals, including the Bonobo Chimpanzee. However, the Bonobo has more moral value than a Human vegetable. A Bonobo Chimpanzee has more moral value than a newborn stuck at the mentality of a 1-2 year old. A Bonobo Chimpanzee adult has more moral value than a fetus that will never be born.
I disagree. A woman's body has naturally been chosen by God and nature to be a host for life.
That all might be true but I still don't see how this means we should allow unbridled abortions (I think that's what you're trying to prove?).
George_Washington said:I disagree. A woman's body has naturally been chosen by God and nature to be a host for life.
I disagree. I think humans are naturally above animals. Except you could make an argument that animals are better than people that have committed horrible crimes.
That all might be true but I still don't see how this means we should allow unbridled abortions (I think that's what you're trying to prove?).
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:That could be true, but to have that as a serious contention, you must first provide evidence that said being exists. Why should I accept the advice and orders of a being no one knows exists? I can just as easily use that same logic and state that My God "Utilitas-Megas" says abortion is desirable if you feel like it.
You couldn't prove he didn't say it.
Yes, true. That's why I mentioned, "nature" as well besides god. It's just the natural order of things for the woman to be the carrier of life. So how can you say it could be immoral for people to force her to have a baby?
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:Yes. That is generally the natural order of things, but so what? Are you saying that something is always good if it's natural, and always bad if it's unnatural? In that case, using two-ply toilet paper is immoral, since it is unnatural.
You have to understand that natural != moral or good. To say it is is at the heart of the is/ought or naturalistic fallacy.
It is immoral for people to force her to have a baby generally because it violates her autonomy and self-preferences as a being with moral pesonhood. Secondly, you are treating a non-person as the equivalent of a person. With personhood come access to the abstract concept of rights. You cannot have a right to live off of someone else, regardless of how you got there. Just because you allow someone to live off of your body, borrowing your circulatory system for a while, does not mean you are binded contractually to that individual.
However, there are some instances in which it could be concievable to force someone to have a baby, but they are mere abstractions and almost impossible to actually realize. They mostly deal with utility among rational beings.
lol That example is like so out there...I don't think it's really the same thing. Deficating and having a baby are completely different things.
Yeah but we're talking about giving birth to a child. We're not talking about somebody who was born blind. In that case I would definitely say, let's try to let him see again. But I think the whole issue of pregnancy is just a different case.
I still don't see how it is immoral, especially if the woman chooses to have unprotected sex and then wants to abort. In my mind, it's being irresponsible. I don't care if women have sex, all I ask is that they use birth control pills if they don't want to get pregnant.
George_Washington said:lol That example is like so out there...I don't think it's really the same thing. Deficating and having a baby are completely different things.
Yeah but we're talking about giving birth to a child. We're not talking about somebody who was born blind. In that case I would definitely say, let's try to let him see again. But I think the whole issue of pregnancy is just a different case.
I still don't see how it is immoral, especially if the woman chooses to have unprotected sex and then wants to abort. In my mind, it's being irresponsible. I don't care if women have sex, all I ask is that they use birth control pills if they don't want to get pregnant.
But you see, nobody is actually, "forcing" her to have a child. Nature and the natural order of things put a fetus inside of her.
If you think that a ball of cells has rights you have serious issues.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:But it's a potential human! Think of the children! :lol:
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:2. It doesn't matter if she chose to have sex. Say, for example, you are a woman and you choose to lend someone the use of your circulatory system via connection. Does this mean you are obligated to keep that person alive using your body? Of course not. Both scenarioes are the same. You once allowed a prasite into your body, but now you disallow them that access. You cannot force someone to do something against his will unless not doing so will cause the death or injury of more than 1 already self-aware beings. A fetus has no moral personhood. It's not self-aware. It's mindless.
Caine said:Okay, so, lets take this into consideration.
For all you anti-abortion people who think women should raise unwanted children (and let them grow up to be serial killers or dead weight for the economy)....
The only way in which I would EVER, EVER, EVER, CONSIDER agreeing with abolishing abortion, is if they legalized the "morning-after" pill, and made it affordable.
If you think that a ball of cells has rights you have serious issues.
George_Washington said:I think it does, in fact, matter if she chooses to have sex. For example, if I choose to go drive my car off a cliff knowing full well that I will probably die, that's nobody's fault but my own that I died. It's not gravity's fault. Likewise, it's not nature's or man's fault that the woman gets pregnant and certainly not the child's. Therefore, she shouldn't punish the child for something she chose to do.
About the fetus, it's only a matter of time before it is self-aware, assuming it isn't already. So why should we let a matter of time end a life?
And as far as "forced" pregnancy being an immoral process, it just isn't, because new babies are needed to carry on the human species. If it's immoral to make a woman have her baby, then you're also saying the entire human race is immoral.
Caine said:This is why we should not eat eggs... cause they will grow up to be chickens, which are more tasty, and more filling.
George_Washington said:I really don't care what kind of preventive pills they make.
Not when that ball of cells is needed to carry on the human race.
Look, you just can't compare humans to chickens. We are a far superior species.
Caine said:Carry on the human race????
WE ARE EXTREMELY OVERPOPULATED!
I don't think we have to fear that any time soon.... So much for that argument. That was kinda dumb.
George_Washington said:No, it wasn't. Because most of the countries that have legalized abortion have negative birth rates.
I think it does, in fact, matter if she chooses to have sex. For example, if I choose to go drive my car off a cliff knowing full well that I will probably die, that's nobody's fault but my own that I died. It's not gravity's fault. Likewise, it's not nature's or man's fault that the woman gets pregnant and certainly not the child's. Therefore, she shouldn't punish the child for something she chose to do.
About the fetus, it's only a matter of time before it is self-aware, assuming it isn't already. So why should we let a matter of time end a life?
And as far as "forced" pregnancy being an immoral process, it just isn't, because new babies are needed to carry on the human species. If it's immoral to make a woman have her baby, then you're also saying the entire human race is immoral.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:If you look at my post, I addressed WHY humans are superior to chickens. Fetus' do not have those characteristics, therefore, unless you WANT the child, the fetus is no more valuable to the parents than a chicken egg.
Caine said:Yet we still stand 6 billion or so strong.
I don't think we have anything to fear by aborting unwanted children.
I would rather have a child I wanted, then a child I didn't want.
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?