IF there’s no clear and direct threat to the life of the mother by definition it is “innocent life”.
Even before Obamacare state insurance boards dictated mandated coverages.
IUD’s were killing hundreds of girls and costing thousands their fertility annual which is why they were taken off of the market for a decade.
Even with some of the newer IUD’s we’ve seen serious health consequences for a lot of the women using them.
Its not lib speak. Its existentalism and ethics. Have you ever taken formal philisophy? And, yes, when you call something “lib speak” you are making it political.
What a strange response to a valid argument by jayjay
Yet, you are applying various degrees of values by rationalizeling the killing of others via claims of “innocence” or “self defense” - neither of which have anything to with the arbitrary fact of human DNA existing in a biological system.
How do you determine whether or not a terrorist should live. Do you look at the terrorist’s genetics, or do you say “terrorist == human therefore his value is the same”?
There’s nothing “arbitrary” about human DNA.
His/her actions.
Using it as an arbitrary basis of value on life is what we are discussing.
Exactly. The value of a human life is measured by actions. Not by the simple fact that the human has human DNA.
There’s nothing arbitrary about it, we are the top of the food chain and the one species that can control, promote, or eliminate the rest.
You’re missing the point. Im talking about assigning value of life in terms of when someone should or should not be killed. Ethics. Deriving ethics based on genetics is arbitrary. Its how genocide begins.
Absent human DNA it’s not a human. With human DNA it is. Humans are distinctly different in numerous ways from every other species on earth.
What defines a terrorist is their actions. Murder, kidnapping, enslavement of others etc which is what justifies killing them.
A healthy baby and normal pregnancy are not harming anyone, thus “innocent human life”.
Not that difficult to understand with a little effort.
Again you are struggling to grasp the discussion. The discussion is about whether natural reductionism is a complete methodology when forming one’s own ethics about the value of other human lives. As you say, the action or lack of action of the baby determines whether it is just to abort - not the fact that it is human. After all, you are ok with abortion if it threatens the life of the mother yes?
It isnt difficult and it isnt relevant to my point.
You seem to be trying to have an argument no one else is having.
If the pregnancy is a clear threat to the life of the mother I have no qualms whatsoever with her deciding to terminate it.
Im not trying to have an argument. Not everything is an argument. If you dont want to discuss ethics of abortion in the context of philosophy then dont join in. However, people have repeatedly used natural reductionism as a basis for their moral viewpoints on abortion.
Every human life has value, they aren’t all of equal value. We separate ourselves by our actions.
I push the discussion in one direction…the direction of getting people to examine their own assumptions.
And you haven’t seen me in a lot of abortion threads if you think I only ever argue against the “pro-life” position…
One of the first of these threads I ever participated in I made it plain that abortion was taking a human life.
