-->
@Greyparrot
Isn't utilitarianism usually invoked to persecute minority groups (such as wealthy people) in order to raise up everyone else?
Kind of inherently an infringement on personal liberty.
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind
Posts
Total:
500
-->
@Greyparrot
Then what are you doing on an abortion forum.
-->
@dustryder
I dislike how you've characterized this. Pregnancy is hard on the mother. It hinders her ability to do things for the most part of a year. It changes her body chemistry. It can have severe complications up to and including death. The ramifications of pregnancy can last beyond the actual birth even if the baby is not kept. I don't think this is fully captured by "A women's convenience".
Just because life may be hard does not mean you get to kill the child.
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you are a vegan, who strongly disagrees with wars or engaging in self defense? If you are morally opposed to taking any life under any circumstances, then I can at least respect that this is your opinion. I would still disagree with you, but I could respect your argument. However, most of the people I have seen use this argument are the same sort of people who are fully supportive of the US military and executing prisoners. So it is usually just massive hypocrisy.
What does veganism have to do with this? I am talking about human life. I am not morally opposed to taking a life in any circumstance, I believe in the death penalty and due justice. An innocent baby constitutes none of these. An innocent, defenseless baby has done nothing wrong. Abortion is murder.
-->
@dustryder
A women's right to health does not overcome another's right to life.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
What does veganism have to do with this? I am talking about human life. I am not morally opposed to taking a life in any circumstance, I believe in the death penalty and due justice.
So you have no issue with killing animals, and you have no issue with killing people. You just think that you should get to decide what the rules around killing should be and no one else should get a say. So yes, you are a massive hypocrite.
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you have no issue with killing animals, and you have no issue with killing people. You just think that you should get to decide what the rules around killing should be and no one else should get a say. So yes, you are a massive hypocrite.
Animal rights are a whole other topic. Lets stay on humans. I don't decide what the rules of killing people are. It is simply my opinion that killing is justifiable in circumstances like the death penalty, one one is at fault and guilty for certain violent crimes. I have made it very clear that we should not murder innocent life.
You are not making any arguments for yourself. I will repeat what I have asked for--
" The argument for you is what constitutes a person. You have to be able to answer this to make determinations on what can be killed and what can't be.
Let's say that it isn't a life or human yet when it is in the womb. It is certainly a potential life, which seems to have much more value than a women's convenience."
It is massively hypocritical of you to say I'm a hypocrite for "getting to decide what the rules around killing" are when you are the one arbitrarily deciding, with no evidence, what constitutes a person and why it should be killed.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I've lost interest in discussing this with you. All you want to do is reiterate that you think a single cell is a human being therefore it is wrong to terminate it. Nothing I say will dissuade you from this illogical position. The vast majority of people disagree with you so if you have your heart set on this, you are going to be disappointed.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Just because life may be hard does not mean you get to kill the child.A women's right to health does not overcome another's right to life.
You keep doing it. How do you expect someone to hold an honest conversation with you when you keep dishonestly using sneaky emotive terminology instead of actual hard logic?
Neither a zygote or a fetus or any form before birth are children.
The word "another" implies a comparison of lifeforms of equal value, however this is simply not the case.
-->
@HistoryBuff
All you want to do is reiterate that you think a single cell is a human being therefore it is wrong to terminate it.
A zygote is a life, so of course it is wrong to kill a unique human organism.
Nothing I say will dissuade you from this illogical position.
You haven't even given an argument, so of course a non-existent argument will not persuade me to become pro-choice.
The vast majority of people disagree with you so if you have your heart set on this, you are going to be disappointed.
This is an appeal to authority. Ad-populum fallacy. This does not prove anything.
Again you have continued not to respond to this--
"The argument for you is what constitutes a person. You have to be able to answer this to make determinations on what can be killed and what can't be.
Let's say that it isn't a life or human yet when it is in the womb. It is certainly a potential life, which seems to have much more value than a women's convenience."
-->
@dustryder
Woah woah woah. Your position is up until birth for abortion?
And I don't care for the semantic argument. You can call it a child or fetus, whatever you name it is completely arbitrary. What exactly makes the life completely worthless before birth but invaluable after birth? What changes that causes this drastic shift in value?
-->
@dustryder
Neither a zygote or a fetus or any form before birth are children.
From conception, we are a child. Whether it is at an early stage of development does not matter. Humans have different stages of growing. We do not change from human to non human o vice versa.
It is a child. Even linguistically, fetus in Latin means "small child."
The word "another" implies a comparison of lifeforms of equal value, however this is simply not the case.
Expand on what you mean by this please. What makes the unborn baby less of that than anyone else?
-->
@bmdrocks21
This is not my position and I haven't argued for a position on abortion in this thread as of yet. My position is simply that Boat is using misleading, inaccurate and/or simplified terminology to make his arguments for him instead of making arguments based around hard logic.
-->
@dustryder
I have yet to see someone of the Pro-Choice persuasion use evidence for why the fetal, human life is worthless. Normally they bring up arbitrary things like viability or brain waves to make the position palatable, but never explain the significance of either position.
I think of this like a crime, determining which motives would allow an abortion. Things like the mother dying(self-defense). Financial status or not thinking you are ready to have a child don't seem particularly convincing to me. Apply that to a toddler.
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
From conception, we are a child. Whether it is at an early stage of development does not matter. Humans have different stages of growing. We do not change from human to non human o vice versa.It is a child. Even linguistically, fetus in Latin means "small child."
You strenuously repeating something without evidence does not make it convincing. The internet is right there. Go google up the definition if it pleases you. I don't know why you brought up non-humans to humans vs different developmental stages, so I think you may be confused about something.
Expand on what you mean by this please. What makes the unborn baby less of that than anyone else?
Sure. So when I compare organisms in terms of "value", I'm referring to their moral value. Some comparisons are fairly obvious. An ant has less moral value than a human. A harder one might be whether or not a dolphin has more moral value than a dog.
In terms of a zygote and an adult for example, it is obviously true we in general apply less moral value to zygotes than to adults and this is obviously in several ways. We don't name zygotes and we don't hold funerals for them when they farted out of vaginas by mistake.
Since it is obviously true that zygotes and adults don't have the same moral values, it is dishonest of you to compare a right of life and a right of health as if they do have the same moral values.
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's because it's not a question of whether or not a fetus has value. I don't think I've heard of a position on abortion where abortion is somehow ok because fetuses have zero value. Of course that doesn't mean someone doesn't have that opinion somewhere.
My impression in general is that it's more of a question of whether a fetus has more value than the bodily autonomy of a woman.
-->
@dustryder
Ok, and that is when I ask the question: why is that fetus there? In 99.5% of cases, the sex was consensual. They decided to enter into risky activity, and created that life. So, I also believe that should be considered because the child had no choice in being conceived. Now, they are being punished/killed/terminated for something they had no say in it.
And comparing an entire life that is ahead of the kid to a temporary condition is also a bit skewed towards the child/fetus. Albeit that condition sucks, but unless the pregnancy would either kill the mother or some severe permanent damage, I am in favor of the child/fetus' rights.
This being said, I wouldn't personally make any pushes for legislation on abortion until we reform the foster care system. I would say, however, that decisions on the legality should be up to the states, not the federal government.
i dont have to you change my mind how about?
-->
@bmdrocks21
You can sidestep the question, but it will always go back to the question of value. If the value of a fetus is comparatively less than that of the mothers, then it's irrelevant that you think it's unfair for fetus. The wellbeing of the mother will always come first.
-->
@dustryder
it is obviously true we in general apply less moral value to zygotes than to adults
Life is life. The examples you described are not evidence for morality. You have yet to explain the WHY. Why is a baby at an early stage of development have less moral value than an adult?
<br>
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Why not?Life is life. The examples you described are not evidence for morality.
You have yet to explain the WHY. Why is a baby at an early stage of development have less moral value than an adult?
I have no idea why. I suspect the answer is long, tedious and complicated. I suggest you do some googling if you wish to know the answer. However it is sufficient for me to know that it is true.
-->
@dustryder
There is no sidestepping here. Sure, the mother's well-being should be considered...on things of equal value: life vs life. But economic concerns vs life is not equal. You're saying the slightest concern under the umbrella term of "well-being" constitutes the ending of a life without question. That seems rather problematic.
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm saying the loser of the consideration between moral values constitutes of the ending of a life without question. It's only problematic for you because you're assigning value to the fetus which should not be assigned.
-->
@dustryder
You are robbing the fetus of value that it should have. There is no consistent application of value except for conception. Anything other logic, say development, could be used to justify killing a toddler, but not killing an adult in their prime. Either human life matters absolutely or the state has full power in determining what lives matter or which don't. I find the latter to be quite troublesome, as you can imagine.
Viability is different based on wealth of parents and quality of local hospitals. Also, until you're a teenager, you couldn't survive on your own, so you could also be considered "non viable".
Brain waves is completely different from brain dead individuals, as brain dead individuals have no life ahead of them, but the fetus/child has their entire life ahead of them.
Heartbeat... pacemakers...
Again, only consistent stance is: is it human? If so, then it has value.
-->
@bmdrocks21
This position is based on what the fetus currently has. Not it will have. We apply this to every facet in life. We do not treat children as adults simply because they will be adults one day. They are children, hence we treat them as children.
Either human life matters absolutely or the state has full power in determining what lives matter or which don't. I find the latter to be quite troublesome, as you can imagine.
It's troubling to me that the state should dictate a woman's quality of life. The most reasonable solution is for the state to butt out of the matters of women entirely because it's not their business. Or yours for that matter.
Viability is different based on wealth of parents and quality of local hospitals. Also, until you're a teenager, you couldn't survive on your own, so you could also be considered "non viable".Brain waves is completely different from brain dead individuals, as brain dead individuals have no life ahead of them, but the fetus/child has their entire life ahead of them.Heartbeat... pacemakers...Again, only consistent stance is: is it human? If so, then it has value.
This wasn't in contention. The question is how much value and how does it stack up to a womans.
-->
@dustryder
Well of course, you don't treat a child like an adult. However, adults, children, and fetus are all humans. Humans have rights. You don't kill a kid because it is a kid, nor do you with an adult because they are an adult. So, why is it okay for a fetus?
I can't have an opinion on women's issues because I am not a woman? Can I not have an opinion on slavery because I was never a slave? Or, can I say that both abortion and slavery are bad?
Well, I was showing how the only consistent position with respecting life is to not allow abortion. It is the main arguments I know of, just explaining why they aren't consistent and can be dangerous philosophies.
I think that the right to life trumps all other rights. No other right really matters if you are dead. Wouldn't you agree?
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well of course, you don't treat a child like an adult. However, adults, children, and fetus are all humans. Humans have rights. You don't kill a kid because it is a kid, nor do you with an adult because they are an adult. So, why is it okay for a fetus?
The answer as it ever has been is that fetuses do not have the same moral value as children or adults.
I can't have an opinion on women's issues because I am not a woman? Can I not have an opinion on slavery because I was never a slave? Or, can I say that both abortion and slavery are bad?
You can have and express an opinion on anything you like. However this does not mean it is any of your business. The choice of whether to shove babies out of your vagina should not be your business, because you don't actually have one.
Well, I was showing how the only consistent position with respecting life is to not allow abortion. It is the main arguments I know of, just explaining why they aren't consistent and can be dangerous philosophies.
Your position with respecting life also simultaneously disrespects existing life. Exactly what do you think is respectful about dictating what women can and cannot do?
I think that the right to life trumps all other rights. No other right really matters if you are dead. Wouldn't you agree?
Between equal organisms sure. Fetuses are not equal organisms.
-->
@dustryder
Even if the attitude has been that fetuses don't have the same moral value as children or adults, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given that same respect.
Ok, but I would argue that slavery and infanticide are both my business. Just because I am not directly affected doesn't mean it isn't my business. Body parts have nothing to do with my ability to add valid input.
Ok, if I said that people shouldn't be able to urinate in public, I am dictating what they can and cannot do. Same story about murdering people. Is there anything wrong about me telling these people they cannot do these things? I doubt you would say that I am disrespecting the murderer or the publicly indecent person, would you?
But why aren't they equal organisms? You keep saying they aren't and mentioning current public attitudes. What is your rationale behind them not being equal?
-->
@bmdrocks21
Even if the attitude has been that fetuses don't have the same moral value as children or adults, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given that same respect.
That's exactly the consequences of having lesser moral value. They are not and should not be given the same level of respect.
Ok, but I would argue that slavery and infanticide are both my business. Just because I am not directly affected doesn't mean it isn't my business. Body parts have nothing to do with my ability to add valid input.
Your ability to add valid input to a topic does not dictate whether or not it is any of your business. If you call a random fat girl fat, you have expressed valid input. It is not, however, your business to call her fat.
Ok, if I said that people shouldn't be able to urinate in public, I am dictating what they can and cannot do. Same story about murdering people. Is there anything wrong about me telling these people they cannot do these things? I doubt you would say that I am disrespecting the murderer or the publicly indecent person, would you?
You've mixed up two concepts here, respectfulness and correctness.
If you tell someone what to do, this is disrespectful because you are projecting your own system of correctness upon their behaviour regardless of their wishes. And this applies to both public urination and murdering.
Regardless of whether or not it is respectful or not, society dictates whether something is correct or not. In this case, calling someone out for public urination or murdering is probably correct.
Telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body is profoundly disrespectful.
But why aren't they equal organisms? You keep saying they aren't and mentioning current public attitudes. What is your rationale behind them not being equal?
I would say that person-hood is the deciding factor
-->
@dustryder
But this concept of lesser moral value is meaningless. You are asserting this solely based on popular opinion. I'm sure a majority of Muslims have certain opinions on women that you would find repugnant. The majority of them think that is the right perception, but that certainly doesn't make it true.
I don't see how it isn't my business. If some moral injustice is occurring, you can't argue that it isn't my business to correct it. It was the business of Abraham Lincoln that slavery was occurring. For a more modern example, would you say that white people cannot protest an instance of police brutality against a minority? Is their opinion meaningless because it isn't their business? Or is it the business of every decent citizen to fight injustice?
Society doesn't dictate whether something is correct or not. They dictate what they perceive as correct. That means they can be wrong. I don't understand where this distinction is coming from. Are you saying that the difference between disrespect and correctness is whether or not it is legal?
And the state gets to determine personhood? That worked out so well in Nazi Germany....