For many people, this is not a utilitarian argument.
Just because something works doesn’t make it good in the eyes of these types of people.
So you are all for reducing abortions unless the govt is involved in any way? Your anti-govt attitude is more important than your pro-life stance? Interesting.
1 Like
Pro life as long as the life doesnt inconvenience me
Pro-murder for my convenience.
Perhaps you have forgotten my goal? Guvnah hit on it immediately, asking if mine was not truly a pro-choice position. My goal is to get the government to what is essentially a “no stance” position on abortion. As I said much earlier the my goal is the Government may not take a stand on abortion. As a government entity it cannot take the position of ending innocent lives. Period. Therefore, no advocating abortion in any way; no funding abortion in any way (not even through insurance); abortion is never a political issue. The government has a complete and total hands off policy. If a woman wants an abortion she does not have and cannot seek government approval because government cannot approve of taking an innocent life. However, it can elect not to prosecute–and that is all it can do.
Next, you brought in contraceptives, also wanting government involvement. I say no to that as well. Government does not become involved in personal matters that individuals are well able to take responsibility for on their own.
My pro-life stance has not stopped over twenty percent of each generation being aborted. I believe taking away government approval might be the best step to reduce that. I find it interesting when people say, “I wouldn’t have an abortion, but if someone else wants one…”
What if when someone finds themselves with a surprise pregnancy, they look around for approval…and discover approval is hard to find. My thinking is that might have just as great an effect–perhaps even greater–than taxpayer funded IUDs.
My position is pro-life. My position is sex within marriage. You know what that gets me? Taunts. “You can do that if you want, but you can’t make anyone else do that. Neener-neener.” The point is, I am not trying to make anyone else do that. It is simply my example, and I stand by it.
It’s not murder.
It is murder. It is ending the life of a human being, against their will.
They don’t even have a will. They arent conscious and it is only a fetus, which is attached to and feeding off the mother. As we’ve already discussed, this doesnt warrant an ethical priority over the mother’s choice.
They do have a will. To grow and develop, with the help of the mother providing nutrients. To end it would be morally and ethically wrong.
And it does warrant as much priority as the mother’s life. Every life matters.
No they dont
That’s a false assertion. Society consistently makes judgements on who is and who is not allowed to live - and even then it is in the context of a born organism. The life of 4 week old fetus has no objective inherent meaning.
But your rationalization for killing them is that they are not consciousness enough, which specifically would eliminate children up to the age of 24 months. And would rationalize killing severely handicapped people, but for some reason, that criteria doesn’t apply to kids up to 24 months, or handicapped people. So you don’t really hold to that position because you would forbid killing handicapped people and children from a certain point of sensory perception in the womb, til 24 months.
No it wouldn’t. You keep repeating this. I am speaking of young fetuses. Not children who are born or in late stage pregnancy. You keep changing the context of the subject to place an incorrect assertion that my moral beliefs regarding the meaning of a young fetus life must be placed upon a timeless context, namely a 24 month year old
I hold that position in the context of a young fetus. Just like, I dont think a 5 year old should serve 3 years in prison for theft, but an adult might. Different levels of development. Different levels of cognition. Different meanings on the value and approach to asserting power over their lives.
Because they arent fetuses and they arent attached to the mother’s organs. You are incorrect to assert that I am claiming consciousness is an arbitrary guideline for all moral questions for all types of human context
No, I am saying your rationalization is inconsistent. That rationalization somehow applies to killing babies in the womb, but not to others. And trying to dehumanize babies calling them fetuses, which by definition that I went over, means a human being. It is just at a different point in development.
1 Like
Wrong. Only God and Mother Nature determine that. And you’re just pissy because I have facts to back up my assertion, while you have zip.
You equate a fetus to a tumor, and this is a false equivalency. A tumor doesn’t have separate organs, separate organ systems. A tumor doesn’t have brain waves. A tumor doesn’t have the potential to grow into a more complex being. You are wrong. Get over it and move on.
Because “others” is an entirely different context with different circumstances and physical links. I am rationalizing only in the context of a fetus, because the context of a fetus is unique. It is very underdeveloped and exists solely by feeding off the mother - has no consciousness, has no history of consciousness, and bears very little resemblance to anything human beyond genetics. A born baby on the other hand is clearly separated from the mother, and is capable of surviving without the mother’s body. A handicapped individual if brain dead - anyone who is brain dead or unconscious - usually is put in the situation where a guardian or spouse can pull the plug. A FETUS does not live in the same biological context of a handicapped person, or a newborn. Thus, the meaning or lack of for the value of its “life” can be determined strictly by whether or not it is conscious.
