You're assuming the animal has a right not to suffer, You're assuming it has rights, how do you justify that in a way that formulates anything close to a standard ethic that when it's exported to abortion doesn't immediately collapse?
I'm actually looking for a criteria, because suffering just tells me the "Is" it doesn't translate into an "ought" for societal morality.
You really need to read the literature, or just read the words which I said exactly after that.
A finger, separated from the body like in your example prior is technically and scientifically alive.
As long as the cells are alive, we can reattach the finger and restore most of the functions to the finger, however a finger doesn't have personhood, which is the actual disagreement.
You can literally concede on this anytime you want and it won't change your argument, because I've already assumed that if your were literate with the topic when you say "alive" you mean "person"
Please reference the post I made prior, I honestly don't care whether or not you personally find abortion wrong, correct, fun, good or whatever silly nonsense words to want to describe the practice as.
All I care about is the beliefs, and their justifications, and their consistency.
Anything else is just virtual signaling or apologetics or even worse, sophistry.
If you have any hope of actually convincing pro-lifers that abortion isn't wrong, you're going to actually have to address the fundamental contention they have.
The vast majority of pro-lifers either believe in natural law theory or divine command theory of meta ethics, so utilizing a amoral definition of ethics isn't going to appeal to them at all unless you actually make an attempt to justify it.
I gave you the opportunity by asking you to justify why animals (who aren't persons) should receive rights and why a clump of cells (who under your definition aren't persons either) shouldn't receive rights. What is the ethical framework that allows for one subject to receive rights and another not to?
If your framework is inherently subjective, then you shouldn't mind if someone beats a dog because he is utilizing the exact same amoral ethic which justifies in your mind the practice of abortion, That it isn't a person, it doesn't have rights, and it's his property and his choice to do whatever he wants.
Your entire argument regarding my contradiction bases on this point, which is false. I'm not sure what you got the idea from that this is an indisputable fact, but it isn't.
I can already tell you don't actually understand the argument,
First off, a fetus by all technically and scientific definitions is in fact "alive" the question isn't even debatable, the problem is whether or not it has "personhood" which case what rights does it have?
If your position is that a fetus, while being scientifically and physically alive, like you referenced your finger is technically alive and "human" but it isn't a person, therefor we shouldn't differentiate between "it's" rights because it isn't an "it"
The absolute "first" thing I established in my previous post was the fact that you don't believe in moral facts, therefor any disagreement about the definition of personhood is pointless over the discussion of the morality because you have no moral basis to appeal to (note I am not calling you immoral or whatever, you lack a fundamental standard to appeal to, so you're functionally completely removed from the moral question of abortion)
I know you didn't actually read your posts, because everything I quoted was directly line by line arguments you've used to justify the practice of abortion, however when it's utilized to justify animal abuse you immediately hide behind an amoral frame which is why it was the first thing I addressed.
The simple truth is you have to either embrace a contradiction in your world view ( which would indicate that you're morally ignorant) or you've have to either reject either your assumption about animal abuse or abortion.
If you'd like I can frame this entirely in a formal argument and I'll let you just pick at it for an hour, but this is a well known problem in meta-ethics.
And just to avoid confusion I'll reiterate that it's OK to think that abortion is wrong, but it's not OK to want to ban it altogether due to solely your own moral.
And regardless of my stance on moral facts, the point is that its entirely subjective and its intellectualy disgraceful to simply look at the abortion debate from a moral standpoint and not consequential one, as in how it actually affects the people that are in need of these procedures.
You're not a "murderer" for having an abortion, and its disgusting to call people that for choosing it when you have no idea of their circumstances of picking that choice to begin with.
Your comparision is quite flawed and illogical in many ways.
You incorrectly make the assumption(indirectly, atleast) that I consider the fetus "alive"(which is an entirely subjective view, which is my point) and then you imply that harming animals doesnt "affect anyone else" when it clearly affects the animals?
A better comparision would be if I was against someone cutting their own fingers off(even this is quite a bad and extreme example, as fingers dont grow back while you can still get pregnant again). And how much I dislike it its their own choice and it really doesn't affect anyone else.
Let me try to explain why this statement is wrong.
First, you have an assumption here in this argument, That there are no moral facts, it's merely subjective opinion influenced by an individuals preference.
Otherwise why shouldn't we mind animal abuse? It's merely you're subjective opinion on what is and what isn't moral, and it's the farmer who has the best claim to ownership over it, and he can decide what he wants to do with them because the animals live on his property, and by extension the animals are his property.
Your opinions about what the farmer can and can't do with the animals on his property "doesn't affect you" and you have no idea "How it affects the people that actually have to live with it." However you want put your "morally correct" justification into a series of "laws" to tell Farmer Joe what he can and can't do with his animals that doesn't affect anyone else.
Shouldn't it be Farmer Joe's "choice" to do with his farmer and animals whatever he wants to do with them?
If you make a case wheter men should have more of a say in abortion,then you're indirectly saying that you think abortion should be allowed? Your point isn't contradictory to mine so I'm not sure what you're on about.
deletedalmost 6 years
We should put chemical contraceptives for both men and women into the food and water sources, and only supply the antidotes to people who are ready to have a child. Thankyou, next.
Tbh I might be one of the few "conservative-minded" people that is pro-choice, and I do believe that men should have some input into the decision so long as it would not be a risk to the woman.
deletedalmost 6 years
I brought up the scenario because I think men are affected by abortion. Men in most developed countries, rightly or wrongly, have no recourse and no legal say in whether an abortion occurs.
I tried to equate that to the above scenario, in which a man forces a woman to take this pill and have an abortion.
I mentioned financial abortion because that is a right that men do not have, while women can without any justification have an actual abortion. I think that if men are required by law to be financially and otherwise responsible for a child, then they are stakeholders - to a lesser extent than women perhaps, but relevant nonetheless - in abortion law.
It's not arrogant to think that "abortion is wrong", Its arrogant to think that "arrogant should be illegal" while not giving a fk about the consequences of the people affected on that decision, which happens to be mostly women. Sure, men can feel loss and guilt over that as well, but to equate it to the female's struggles about that decision just show that you know very little about why people actually choose abortion.
I don't think you're a very logical person if you think what I said implies that its OK to trick someone into an abortion, nor is the scenario you just mentioned and the one before really relevant to the discussion to begin with.
deletedalmost 6 years
Maybe in 20 years someone will invent a magical morning after pill that can work up to 6 months after conception with no noticeable side effects. Does a male have the right to trick his partner into taking this pill in a drink or food? Is that ethical?
Logically following your argument to its end point, this is perfectly acceptable.
deletedalmost 6 years
Even on the pro abortion side it's wrong. Why don't men have the right to escape financial responsibility for a child that would "dramatically change their life" or they "can't afford", reasons which women use to justify over 75% of abortions
I'm not entirely sure what kind of point you're trying to make here other than stating the obvious.
lol
deletedalmost 6 years
Someone wanting their opinions to be put into law is democratic process. I can agree with me, and other people can disagree with me.
But are you saying that abortion doesn't affect men? Because I don't think that's true at all. Abortion emotionally affects men as much as it affects women. It's not an issue only for women to discuss.
Its pretty damn arrogant to want your subjective view of a complex issue that doesn't even affect you to begin with to be put in law ,since you're "morally correct", without thinking on how it affects the people that actually have to deal with it to begin with. That's the disgusting part.
deletedalmost 6 years
I'm not sure if you're talking about abortion or childbirth :doge: but I don't see how it's disgusting because one is male.
Its pretty damn disgusting for a male who never will have to even go through that procedure to be "pro life". You can think that abortion is wrong, sure. But wanting to put your opinion into law and ban it is pretty terrible.
