Why kill a baby instead of a woman?

[weaver2]

Philosophically speaking, I would argue that the maximization of human lives approach should be taken .....

And that is exactly the argument conservative evangelicals and Catholics refuse to take. They consider only the life of the fetus, never the lives of the family the fetus will adversely effect when it is born and added to a family that cannot support it.

There are statistics showing that the addition of an unplanned and/or unwanted child or another child does significant damage to a family that is struggling with physical and psychological safety problems, financial problems, instability, or toxic inter-family relationships. Not only is the family harmed in permanent ways but so is the additional child.

The in such situations the rate of poverty, divorce, abandonment, violence, child abuse and deaths increase. In now way have these families or these children experienced "maximization"

 

[collected]

And that is exactly the argument conservative evangelicals and Catholics refuse to take. They consider only the life of the fetus, never the lives of the family the fetus will adversely effect when it is born and added to a family that cannot support it.

There are statistics showing that the addition of an unplanned and/or unwanted child or another child does significant damage to a family that is struggling with physical and psychological safety problems, financial problems, instability, or toxic inter-family relationships. Not only is the family harmed in permanent ways but so is the additional child.

The in such situations the rate of poverty, divorce, abandonment, violence, child abuse and deaths increase. In now way have these families or these children experienced "maximization"

You misinterpreted my statement and/or took it out of context. The maximization of lives means just that, the maximization of lives. Socioeconomic reasons that you've outlined would never justify a parent murdering a five year old, why would it justify murdering a human being in the womb?

If a trolley is headed toward five people, but you can divert it onto a track with only one person, the principle (maximization of lives) would suggest pulling the lever to minimize the loss of life. It has nothing to do with financial problems, instability, and inter-family relationships. It's worth noting that under deontological ethics, the person pulling the lever could be considered culpable for killing the one person on the track.

I also don't buy your families cannot support it characterization. In first world nations such as the US, there's numerous safety nets, assistance programs, non-profits, and community resources available. There's no way a family literally can't provide sustenance to a new family member.

 

[Lursa]

And that is exactly the argument conservative evangelicals and Catholics refuse to take. They consider only the life of the fetus, never the lives of the family the fetus will adversely effect when it is born and added to a family that cannot support it.

There are statistics showing that the addition of an unplanned and/or unwanted child or another child does significant damage to a family that is struggling with physical and psychological safety problems, financial problems, instability, or toxic inter-family relationships. Not only is the family harmed in permanent ways but so is the additional child.

The in such situations the rate of poverty, divorce, abandonment, violence, child abuse and deaths increase. In now way have these families or these children experienced "maximization"

They only consider "breathing," not the entirety of a life. They value quantity over quality of life.

 

[collected]

They only consider "breathing," not the entirety of a life. They value quantity over quality of life.

Quantity should be valued over quality. Murdering a person and harvesting five organs to greatly improve the lives of five people would result in a net increase in the quality of life, would it not?

 

[Lursa]

Quantity should be valued over quality. Murdering a person and harvesting five organs to greatly improve the lives of five people would result in a net increase in the quality of life, would it not?

You would be taking someone's quality of life from them. So, that's wrong...that's exactly what I'm talking about. And then as you demonstrate...numerically apply it to others.

And the unborn has no quality of life. It exists, only, as a reflection of the woman carrying it.

 

[weaver2]

You misinterpreted my statement and/or took it out of context.

No, I didn't. Considering only the fetus is not "maximizing lives". It isn't even maximizing the life of the fetus if the family cannot support the child when it is born.

The maximization of lives means just that, the maximization of lives. Socioeconomic reasons that you've outlined would never justify a parent murdering a five year old, why would it justify murdering a human being in the womb?

Because it is not yet a human being, legally, biblically or biologically and abortion of a non-sentient embryo isn't murder; that's a just a propaganda line concocted by anti abortion fanatics so they can throw the word murderer around and look smug. And socio-economics are at the base of almost every action.

If a trolley is headed toward five people, but you can divert it onto a track with only one person, the principle (maximization of lives) would suggest pulling the lever to minimize the loss of life. It has nothing to do with financial problems, instability, and inter-family relationships. It's worth noting that under deontological ethics, the person pulling the lever could be considered culpable for killing the one person on the track.

Your trolley example is the the very best example of aborting to save the lives of the family.

I also don't buy your families cannot support it characterization.

Color me surprised!

In first world nations such as the US, there's numerous safety nets, assistance programs, non-profits, and community resources available.

.....that generally are not available in Republican states especially those that ban abortion, especially not to poor families, which are the families that get abortions because very few family support services are available to them.

There's no way a family literally can't provide sustenance to a new family member.

more than just sustenance levels are needed to produce whole, healthy, contributing adults

Your problem is that you refuse to read anything other than the clap trap of mis-applied anti-abortion philosophy and nothing statistical about families, children, poverty, education, homelessness, addiction, employment and early death rates of the poor.

 

[weaver2]

Quantity should be valued over quality.

We already tried that. It doesn't work well, especially for children

 

[collected]

You would be taking someone's quality of life from them. So, that's wrong...that's exactly what I'm talking about. And then as you demonstrate...numerically apply it to others.

No, it would be considered taking someone's quantity of life from them, not quality. Without life itself, there can be no quality, so what’s really being taken away is their entire existence, not just the conditions of their life. The quality of life only applies to those who are living, which is evident because today's quality of life is not based on the wellbeing of those who died centuries ago.

And the unborn has no quality of life. It exists, only, as a reflection of the woman carrying it.

So what? I don't believe that human beings should be murdered to provide a net increase in the quality of life. Your utilitarian argument only works for those who believe that people should be killed and have their organs harvested if it improves the lives of others.

 

[collected]

No, I didn't. Considering only the fetus is not "maximizing lives". It isn't even maximizing the life of the fetus if the family cannot support the child when it is born.

There's no evidence of families being unable to support the child when it is born in the US. The obesity rate for the poor is the highest. There is actually an overabundance of resources, not too little. Unless the fetus is going to cause another person's death, it should result in a net increase in quantity.

Because it is not yet a human being, legally, biblically or biologically and abortion of a non-sentient embryo isn't murder; that's a just a propaganda line concocted by anti abortion fanatics so they can throw the word murderer around and look smug. And socio-economics are at the base of almost every action.

All unproven/wrong assertions. Explain how an organism that's of the human species is not a human being.

It is a human being because it's an organism that's of the human species.

Your trolley example is the the very best example of aborting to save the lives of the family.

No because abortion does not save lives. The net result is a decrease in lives through acts of commission (aka murder).

Color me surprised!

Show me the evidence, present day and in the US. Even if families literally did not have the food and water, it would still be wrong to kill people due to lack of resources.

.....that generally are not available in Republican states especially those that ban abortion, especially not to poor families, which are the families that get abortions because very few family support services are available to them.

Obesity rate for the poorest in Republican states tends to be the highest as well. Yes, the reasons are multi-factorial, but one of the factors is poverty.

more than just sustenance levels are needed to produce whole, healthy, contributing adults

Now you're trying to justify your utilitarianism. Adults have the capability to be whole, healthy, and contributing without abortion. Also why would killing a human be justified even if it resulted in whole, healthy, contributing adults?

Your problem is that you refuse to read anything other than the clap trap of mis-applied anti-abortion philosophy and nothing statistical about families, children, poverty, education, homelessness, addiction, employment and early death rates of the poor.

Homelessness can be eliminated by killing the homeless, that's what the German Nazis did, literally. Killing people is not justified if it's a solution to bad personal choices or socioeconomic ills.

 

[weaver2]

No, it would be considered taking someone's quantity of life from them, not quality. Without life itself, there can be no quality, so what’s really being taken away is their entire existence, not just the conditions of their life. The quality of life only applies to those who are living, which is evident because today's quality of life is not based on the wellbeing of those who died centuries ago.

Word salad with dressing.

So what? I don't believe that human beings should be murdered to provide a net increase in the quality of life.

Most wars are fought for exactly that reason.

Your utilitarian argument only works for those who believe that people should be killed and have their organs harvested if it improves the lives of others.

No, a utilitarian argument always works for the greatest number of people. That's why it is called utilitrian.

 

[Boots]

And that is exactly the argument conservative evangelicals and Catholics refuse to take. They consider only the life of the fetus, never the lives of the family the fetus will adversely effect when it is born and added to a family that cannot support it.

There are statistics showing that the addition of an unplanned and/or unwanted child or another child does significant damage to a family that is struggling with physical and psychological safety problems, financial problems, instability, or toxic inter-family relationships. Not only is the family harmed in permanent ways but so is the additional child.

The in such situations the rate of poverty, divorce, abandonment, violence, child abuse and deaths increase. In now way have these families or these children experienced "maximization"

That is false.

 

[Lursa]

No, it would be considered taking someone's quantity of life from them, not quality. Without life itself, there can be no quality, so what’s really being taken away is their entire existence, not just the conditions of their life. The quality of life only applies to those who are living, which is evident because today's quality of life is not based on the wellbeing of those who died centuries ago.

Yes it is taking a life. It is putting merely the chance of breathing ahead of the entire life of the woman, every day, involving a person, all others in her life, and society. Quantity over quality of ife.

The anti-abortionists goal is simply this: "as long as both end up breathing after pushing/being pushed out a vagina." That goal is reduced simply to that...and look how dehumanizing it is, reducing both to nothing more than a physiological function?

So what? I don't believe that human beings should be murdered to provide a net increase in the quality of life. Your utilitarian argument only works for those who believe that people should be killed and have their organs harvested if it improves the lives of others.

"So what?" So I dont care what your personal opinion is on that, since you cannot protect that other human life without devaluing the woman...her life, her consent, her rights (like bodily autonomy, due process, etc), her health, all she means to others, her moral agency. You choose to devalue the women and place the unborn exiting breathing above all that in her life. You are welcome to do so but I havent seen any justification for forcing it on women that dont agree just because you place another human life ahead of hers. What is that justification?

Not all 'choose life.' It's not the highest priority for all. Many choose family, country, principles, religion, etc over life...who are you to assume for that woman or her unborn?

 

[weaver2]

There's no evidence of families being unable to support the child when it is born in the US. The obesity rate for the poor is the highest. There is actually an overabundance of resources, not too little. Unless the fetus is going to cause another person's death, it should result in a net increase in quantity.

I'm sure in your world of "abortion is murder and women murder out of convenience" the poor are just lazy overeaers who create their own problems and ignore all the overabundance of excellent good help and resources offered them.

All unproven/wrong assertions. Explain how an organism that's of the human species is not a human being. It is a human being because it's an organism that's of the human species..

The key word is being. Look it up.

No because abortion does not save lives. The net result is a decrease in lives through acts of commission (aka murder).

And this is bad because ........?

Show me the evidence, present day and in the US. Even if families literally did not have the food and water, it would still be wrong to kill people due to lack of resources.

Your words actuall say."Even if people had no water or food it would be wrong to abort a pregnancy"

Obesity rate for the poorest in Republican states tends to be the highest as well. Yes, the reasons are multi-factorial, but one of the factors is poverty.

Are you trying to negate the poverty based on obsity?

Now you're trying to justify your utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism has already been justified.

Adults have the capability to be whole, healthy, and contributing without abortion. Also why would killing a human be justified even if it resulted in whole, healthy, contributing adults? Homelessness can be eliminated by killing the homeless, that's what the German Nazis did, literally. Killing people is not justified if it's a solution to bad personal choices or socioeconomic ills.

The pretzl arguments you have to make in order to condemn abortion are rather grizzley and bizaare.
There is only one acceptable reason for being against abortion: Your religious beliefs are against abortion. You have a constitutional right to believe what you want withinthe confines of your church. Everybody has a constitutional right to be free from your religious dogma.

 

[weaver2]

It (the life of the fetus) is not the highest priority for all. Many choose family, country, principles, religion, etc over life...who are you to assume for that woman or her unborn?

The arrogance of assuming for all women is breathtaking, isn't it.

 

[Lursa]

The arrogance of assuming for all women is breathtaking, isn't it.

They dont hesitate to fantasize and ask..."what does the unborn choose?" or "why not ask the unborn if it wants to be killed?" Fine, if they want to personify the unborn and ask them? Then again:

"Life" is not the highest priority for all. Many choose family, country, principles, religion, etc over life...who are you to assume for that for the unborn?

 

[Gordy327]

They dont hesitate to fantasize and ask..."what does the unborn choose?" or "why not ask the unborn if it wants to be killed?" Fine, if they want to personify the unborn and ask them? Then again:

"Life" is not the highest priority for all. Many choose family, country, principles, religion, etc over life...who are you to assume for that for the unborn?

Indeed. Without quality, life isn't "worth" living that much. For example, Just ask a terminal cancer patient in constant Pain if their life is still worth living.

 

[The Mark]

Inspired by another thread, I wanted to get a clarification from those with pro-life position on this forum who believe there should be exception for saving mother's life.

If you truly believe abortion is killing an innocent baby, why should there be exception for when woman's life is in danger?

In your worldview, when a doctor faces a terrible choice of killing a mother or a baby, why is s/he supposed to kill the baby?

So far as I know, that decision is up to the mother or (if they cannot make that decision due to their state) possibly their significant other or another family member or friend charged with making such decisions.

Or it should be.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Inspired by another thread, I wanted to get a clarification from those with pro-life position on this forum who believe there should be exception for saving mother's life.

If you truly believe abortion is killing an innocent baby, why should there be exception for when woman's life is in danger?

In your worldview, when a doctor faces a terrible choice of killing a mother or a baby, why is s/he supposed to kill the baby?

And the strawman of the year award goes to.... Slavister!!!!
Well Done!!!

 

[weaver2]

That is false.

And that statement is supported by .......?

 

[collected]

I'm sure in your world of "abortion is murder and women murder out of convenience" the poor are just lazy overeaers who create their own problems and ignore all the overabundance of excellent good help and resources offered them.

According surveys from women who had abortions, most stated that they've done so for socioeconomic reasons.

No, in my world I believe that socioeconomic ills are multi-factorial. Once reason for socioeconomic ills may be bad personal decisions.

The key word is being. Look it up.

I did and a dictionary agrees with me.

any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/human being

And this is bad because ........?

Because it's murder.

Your words actuall say."Even if people had no water or food it would be wrong to abort a pregnancy"

Exactly. It would be wrong. Why would it not be wrong?

If you were lost and stranded on a boat with limited resources along with others, would it be right to kill them? Their lives are just as valuable as yours.

Are you trying to negate the poverty based on obsity?

No, I'm not. Perhaps you're conflating support with life's conveniences.

Utilitarianism has already been justified.

Okay, so do you believe this?

• If a judge can prevent riots that will cause many deaths only by convicting an innocent person of a crime and imposing a severe punishment on that person, act utilitarianism implies that the judge should convict and punish the innocent person. (See Rawls and also Punishment.)
• If a doctor can save five people from death by killing one healthy person and using that person’s organs for life-saving transplants, then act utilitarianism implies that the doctor should kill the one person to save five.

Source: https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/#SH3b

The above examples are not a mischaracterization of utilitarianism. I believe that convicting innocent people due to potential blowback and murdering people to harvest their organs is WRONG. How do you defend utilitarianism when it views these acts as justified?

The pretzl arguments you have to make in order to condemn abortion are rather grizzley and bizaare.
There is only one acceptable reason for being against abortion: Your religious beliefs are against abortion. You have a constitutional right to believe what you want withinthe confines of your church. Everybody has a constitutional right to be free from your religious dogma.

You didn't refuted the points I brought up but instead called then grizzly and bizarre. Shouldn't you easily be able to refute points that are grizzly and bizarre? Perhaps you've been unable to explain why utilitarianism should be used as justification for abortion.

 

[cpwill]

Inspired by another thread, I wanted to get a clarification from those with pro-life position on this forum who believe there should be exception for saving mother's life.

If you truly believe abortion is killing an innocent baby, why should there be exception for when woman's life is in danger?

In your worldview, when a doctor faces a terrible choice of killing a mother or a baby, why is s/he supposed to kill the baby?

Because equal rights balance, and generally in that case you cannot save the child already.

 

[Boots]

And that statement is supported by .......?

The same proof posited by the person making the false statement.

 

[Juin]

So? What does that have to do with murder? Abortion is not murder. "Human being" is not a legal designation. They are not persons with rights. The pregnant woman is.

Wasnt that what blacks and jews were at some point?

 

[Juin]

what rights do the unborn have?

Right to life

Where in the law books are these rights established or enumerated?

Certain rights are natural and inalienable, not gifts from law books. Law books have little to say for themselves given that blacks were given the same zero rights you give foetuses

 

[Manc Skipper]

A woman might fight back! A baby not so much.