Situation in china (1 Viewer)

[FISHX]

What are peoples veiws termination due to gender as with the china situation?

1. Most Americans would consider infanticide to be morally wrong. However, infanticide is widely practiced throughout the world. Is infanticide necessarily immoral and, if so, is it universally wrong? By what criteria do we make that determination, and do those criteria distinguish unambiguously between abortion, which is legal in our society, and infanticide which is not, but which is accepted and practiced in other societies?

2. Abortion is legal and is accepted by the majority of the American population as morally correct. Why is abortion an acceptable method of family planning in the U.S., but not infanticide? To what extent are we, by accepting abortion and rejecting infanticide, defining one method of terminating a human life as morally acceptable while condemning another form as morally unacceptable? If infanticide is practiced by peoples who do not have access to abortion technology, can they be considered morally wrong for terminating a human life by the best means they have available to them while accepting our method of terminating a life because we possess the technological means to end that life before birth?


http://drabruzzi.com/infanticide.htm

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Most Americans would consider infanticide to be morally wrong. However, infanticide is widely practiced throughout the world. Is infanticide necessarily immoral and, if so, is it universally wrong?

This isnt a discussion of abortion or infanticide, but of universal right/wrong.

People will argue that right/wrong is defined by the society they live in; these people will argue this up to the point where the society they live in defines right/wrong in a manner they don't like.

2. Abortion is legal and is accepted by the majority of the American population as morally correct.

I doubt this.

Accepting the idea that people have the right to an abortion does not necessitate that they think abortion is "morally correct".

If so - then why the "rare" in "safe legal and rare"? If you arent killing a human life, then why care how often it happens?

 

[tecoyah]

I doubt this.

Accepting the idea that people have the right to an abortion does not necessitate that they think abortion is "morally correct".

So very true.....this is an issue of societal rights. In this country we value All life, but our laws are set up to deal with the Grey, as well as the black and white, at least to an extent. I know very few people who think Abortion is a Good thing, But virtually everyone I associate with consider freedom of choice to be tantamount to what this country stands for. So, while I personally dont like, or even condone Abortion, I would never take the option away from someone, based on my opinion.

I am not God....and wouldnt take the job if offered it.

 

[FISHX]

I don,t actually think that anyone has the right to kill another whether it is the unborn innocent or the fully grown murderer rights are meant to be earned how exactly do you think we would go about earning the right to kill?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I know very few people who think Abortion is a Good thing, But virtually everyone I associate with consider freedom of choice to be tantamount to what this country stands for. So, while I personally dont like, or even condone Abortion, I would never take the option away from someone, based on my opinion.

This baffles me
1- I think it is wrong
2- I'm not willing to do anything about it.

Whats the point of having a moral position if you arent willing to do anything about it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don,t actually think that anyone has the right to kill another whether it is the unborn innocent or the fully grown murderer rights are meant to be earned how exactly do you think we would go about earning the right to kill?

We all have the right to kill in self-defense.

 

[tecoyah]

I don,t actually think that anyone has the right to kill another whether it is the unborn innocent or the fully grown murderer rights are meant to be earned how exactly do you think we would go about earning the right to kill?

This is the key to understanding the Why:

......"I"................

Just because an individual, or even a majority is of a certain opinion, does not make it OK to force it upon everyone. Thus we have the freedoms inherent in this country. Were we as a population, to allow for such a thing, literally half the things we do would be illegal. There needs to be a very good reason, based on proven Data to institute restrictions on these freedoms, or the risk to the freedom we experience is increased.

 

[FISHX]

No sorry i beleive we have the right to debilitate in self defence but never the right to take a life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just because an individual, or even a majority is of a certain opinion, does not make it OK to force it upon everyone. Thus we have the freedoms inherent in this country. Were we as a population, to allow for such a thing, literally half the things we do would be illegal. There needs to be a very good reason, based on proven Data to institute restrictions on these freedoms, or the risk to the freedom we experience is increased.

Not to drag this off-topic, but:
If only this applied to gun control.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No sorry i beleive we have the right to debilitate in self defence but never the right to take a life.

if the -only way- to save your life or the life of another is to kill the attacker, then you most certainly have the right to do so.

Hoe can you argue that you have the right to live if you do not have the right to protect that life by whatever means necessary to do so?

 

[FISHX]

This is the key to understanding the Why:

......"I"................

Just because an individual, or even a majority is of a certain opinion, does not make it OK to force it upon everyone. Thus we have the freedoms inherent in this country. Were we as a population, to allow for such a thing, literally half the things we do would be illegal. There needs to be a very good reason, based on proven Data to institute restrictions on these freedoms, or the risk to the freedom we experience is increased.

Should causing the death of another not be enough of a reason to instigate these restrictions?