If you're not in a position to have a child it makes no sense to drink bleach instead of going to a doctor and having it done properly, it's stupid to bring a kid who is unloved and unappreciated into the world. Also if you're <15 and you give it up for adoption, isn't there general health risks? Kids are already like rolling the dice as is, no need to make it worse
Hahahaha you're right. I'll need some time to think it through.
EDIT: OR ARE YOU HMM
A quick thought: My original statement was that it's arrogant/disgusting not thinking a pro-life stance through and ONLY look it through the lens of whether you think abortion is morally right/wrong, and not thinking about the consequences on the mothers who have to go through this, but I digress, it is a good point.
There doesn't need to be one, however then you can't tell people who want to ban abortion that they are monsters for denying a woman's right to choose, because there is no moral obligation to justify your actions.
This is the part of philosophy where you have to choose between being consistent (and acting in good faith) and rejecting a belief you hold, or believing in contradictions and loosing the argument, but maintaining your moral sensibilities.
I mean, at least in your philosophy you just have to accept the validity of the pro-life, I have to literally be okay with believing that A. A fetus is a person and B. It's morally acceptable to remove it from the womb. Which is way harder to justify emotionally regardless of how logically sound the argument is and consistent.
Personhood is a tricky concept; which is why I don't pretend to answer it.
I assume as a presupposition Mary Anne Warren's criteria for personhood, with small elective changes to "Has the capacity or 'could' have the capacity with the following; consciousness, reasoning, self-motivation, communication, moral agency.
This is a stronger version of her argument, which she later uses to justify abortion, however leaves her unable to tackle the moral question of animal rights, which she has to develop a "scale" for cognitive capacity which I find logically unjustifiable given her arguments on personhood.
Peter Singer believes that the comatose, the severely mentally disabled don't have equivalent rights because of this position he's taken on cognitive capacity, which is logically sound however most people would find repulsive and amoral.
But wait, I haven't really said that there needs to be a MORAL obligation based on facts/reasoning. Given my distinction on laws and morals, I don't see there being a problem with defining laws with facts/reasoning and not simply morals(which is what I stated). I'll still read on it tho since I find it interesting.
I wildly disagree with this sentiment and will read up on it and return.
deletedalmost 6 years
Also circular logic goes in circles.
The statement "animals are different because it's ok to kill animals and I won't get arrested for killing animals" has one side and zero edges.
deletedalmost 6 years
I'm not religious in the slightest. I guess I'm agnostic, and while I desperately hope some sort of deity exists, I don't believe one does.
So to me, when someone dies, they cease to exist permanently. Even if they were copied exactly, with all their DNA and all their memories, the copy wouldn't be the same consciousness. There's only one of everyone.
Every living thing only gets one opportunity to live, and I don't think it's okay to actively and knowingly take that chance away *from a sentient being* solely because of your own mistakes.
It's evolutionary I guess, because parents want their child to have the best future possible. But murdering one kid because the parents aren't ready and replacing it with another a few years down isn't okay.
Just my personal thoughts, so if you're gonna pick them apart, do it gently please.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but I'll reply:
"consequentialist framework that would weigh the lives of 60 million potential persons against the suffering of all of their mothers,"
Technically the same argument could then be applied to men and justifying their ejaculation if we state that its immoral to kill "potential persons".
If we however do not think its wrong to kill something that might technically be alive, but has not obtained person hood(I kind of need to know what you yourself define as a person tho) then I do not see the issue here. But perhaps I'm not understanding your point here?
It isn't a direct contradiction anymore, however it does still have the problem of actually developing a consequentialist framework that would weigh the lives of 60 million potential persons against the suffering of all of their mothers, which case no impact calculus is going to tell you what to do there unless you first solve the issue of personhood.
If you just want to make something up, that's cool, however you can't have a moral duty from your second contention because the inverse of your first contention wouldn't substantiate the law in morality.
Well consequences are just one part of the equation, there are certainly more factors and I think its incorrect to compare laws of entirely different subjects with eachother. But yeah, more fact and reasoning the merrier basically.
Actually, I think you need to read it again. I stated the only contradiction that could arise in your viewpoint is if you believe that animals have rights and abortion is permissible. However you can continue to do whatever you like.
On the second part of your comment I stated was irrelevant because of the admission you don't believe in animal rights. You can see it's all there.
As for your feelings on the subject of me? I really don't care. You're doing a better job of discrediting yourself than I ever could.
no you dipshít, i'm saying that the animal argument is irrelevant, because as edark pointed out we kill animals constantly, we only make laws to prevent cruelty.
and the second part of my comment had nothing to do with how i view a fetus. it was only about you.
First of all we do kill animals and I won’t get arrested for killing an animal unless it is protected under the law aka going extinct, being someones pet etc.
I might not MORALLY like the idea of killing animals but it is still legal in the sense of it not being a person, or not having the same rights as a human person.
This is however not a contradiction given my stance on abortion given the distinction between law and morals, and it's not a contradiction to think that even though I find something immoral, doesn't necessarily mean I think it should be outlawed.
I see that you're implying that I think that laws are not made with morals in mind at all, when I clearly stated that they were, but they should also think about the consequences etc. Let me rephrase your statement to accurately portray what I meant
A. We shouldn't make laws against abortion solely based on ones morality, but also have in mind the consequences of said action.
B. Abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible as a moral duty, but we also need to think what the consequences are on said law.
I believe this is common sense to the highest degree, and point is morals are able to conflict with each other and we separate this with law and this is how we generally handle disputes
This is just factually incorrect, shortsighted given the advances in medicine(as I pointed out) and you're contradicting on many points. But I'll break it down anyhow.
"Due to personhood being very closely linked to being a human (or mutually exclusive) the earliest form of a human should be the earliest point."
If you make the claim that the earliest form of a human is a person then sperm and egg's should be considered humans.
You however try and dodge this fact by stating that zygote and sperm are of different "species":
"Due to it being of the human species (which a Sperm or Egg is not)"
which is factually incorrect. Simply because a sperm or an egg is incredibly underdeveloped doesn't mean that they are not of the "human species". It's a biological fact that its a state of humanity(albeit incredibly earl). This is like claiming that tadpoles are of a different species of frogs due to their lack of development, it doesn't make sense at all.
If you claim that personhood is given "at the earliest stage of human development" then you must realize that you could as easily draw the line at the egg/sperm stage, than simply arbirtrary drawing the line when you combine the two. Ofc the zygote will be closer to an ACTUAL human, but so is the embryo, the fetus etc. The later you draw the line the more of a human it resembles, but it's still of the human species.
You need to either realize that your definition of what a person is logically flawed, or come to the realization that given your own idea of personhood you're a massmurderer of astronomical proportions.
I wouldn't make her do anything, if it where medically and physically possible, if she wanted to remove the fetus I'd prefer to have her take mifepristone and misoprostol early in her pregnancy to expel it without directly killing it, however then again, I'm not "Pro-Life" as you define it, I still believe that it's a person-like entity with at least rights equivalent to some small animals, I just don't believe that gives the fetus the right to live at another's expense without consent.
If it was a homeless man wandering into my house, squatting and taking resources, I'd ask for the police to remove him, and if possible without damaging my house or harming him. However if it results in death, it's sad but justified, however if he manages to get taken in by someone else thats morally preferable than just taking a .38 and blowing his brains out. That's an extremely generalized examination of my belief system, however you get the point.
