-->
@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 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Expand on what you mean by this please. What makes the unborn baby less of that than anyone else?
it is obviously true we in general apply less moral value to zygotes than to adults
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?
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.
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?
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?