an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[GhostWriter16]

Do you think that it would be murder to kill a sentient AI of human-level intelligence?

Until it happens I don't care to discuss this.

 

[Traitorfish]

What about the rest of my post?

 

[Farm Boy]

That doesn't actually answer my question, it's just a reiteration of your previous assertion. You've made it clear that you think it's immoral to kill any specimen of H. sapiens, but you're not actually explaining why this is the

It's almost worthy of it's own thread to get into the philosophy behind rules against killing humans. It can be justified by Egoism, Divine Command, Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, etc etc etc depending on where you want to go with it. I think GW has made it relatively clear he's coming from divine command at the moment, but he could correct me, of course.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Probably

 

[Traitorfish]

But if your opposition to abortion is derived from a divine command theory of ethics, doesn't that mean that criminalising abortion amounts to legislating religion?

 

[mangxema]

The mother does not have any right to destroy human life. The fetus' right to life trumps any right to bodily freedom liberals would like to argue she has.

Perhaps, but she certainly ought to have the right to save her own.

(Not talking about early abortions or risk of life situations)

The above is a unique case.

I know you like to wave away these odd exceptions, but they matter, especially when you are talking in absolutist terms.

@GW: I also find it ironic considering where you are politically. I know you're young, but I could easily see you, as an older person, grumbling about the government making a mess of things, how they make all these laws based on their idea of a better future, and however well-intentioned they may be, God bless 'em, they just don't fully appreciate how their rules will affect people in the real world.

But this is exactly what you're doing: you're painting with broad strokes and simply dismissing the inconvenient outliers as irrelevant, when in reality they are people and they do matter. If my aunt became pregnant, she would almost certainly die before delivering the baby; I don't know the details but basically her heart couldn't take the stress. In this scenario, an abortion is the 'pro-life' option. You should be able to recognize this. But instead you are single-mindedly crying about fetuses, fetuses, fetuses. That narrow focus is how bad laws get made. If it were your life on the line you would not want to be the whims of self-righteous, moralizing bureaucrats, who haven't thought through the full implications of their actions, standing in the way of your doctor doing what clearly needs to be done to save your life. Don't be part of the problem.

What are some things you think could be done other than outlawing it that would discourage abortion?

IMHO this is the way to go. That way everybody wins.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Perhaps, but she certainly ought to have the right to save her own.

I agree, although if there is any way possible to save both lives, this should be the first option. If it is NOT possible and you have to pick, I'd agree she has to be able to pick her own, and doubly so if BOTH parties are going to die if an abortion is done.

@GW: I also find it ironic considering where you are politically. I know you're young, but I could easily see you, as an older person, grumbling about the government making a mess of things, how they make all these laws based on their idea of a better future, and however well-intentioned they may be, God bless 'em, they just don't fully appreciate how their rules will affect people in the real world.

But this is exactly what you're doing: you're painting with broad strokes and simply dismissing the inconvenient outliers as irrelevant, when in reality they are people and they do matter. If my aunt became pregnant, she would almost certainly die before delivering the baby; I don't know the details but basically her heart couldn't take the stress. In this scenario, an abortion is the 'pro-life' option. You should be able to recognize this. But instead you are single-mindedly crying about fetuses, fetuses, fetuses. That narrow focus is how bad laws get made. If it were your life on the line you would not want to be the whims of self-righteous, moralizing bureaucrats, who haven't thought through the full implications of their actions, standing in the way of your doctor doing what clearly needs to be done to save your life. Don't be part of the problem.

Its because the idea of banning abortion when the mothers' life is in danger is not really on the table. I think only the most fundamentalist Protestants and perhaps a few Catholics would like to see this happen, but either way, it is not going to happen. When we're dealing with abortion being available on demand, to throw that rare situation out of left-field distracts from where the debate should actually be focused.

So I'm not casually waving it aside. I'm aware of what my position is on those abortions. But until other abortions get banned, its not even going to matter what my position is on those rare abortions that are to save the mothers life.

 

[LucyDuke]

Why aren't you willing to talk about anything besides how correct your opinion is?

 

[mangxema]

Still, there are bureaucrats and politicians meddling in personal medical decisions. If I was a woman and I was told by my doctor that my baby was not going to be viable, that it might have a brief and painful life before inevitably dying, yeah I'd want to abort, rather than pat myself on the back for this allegedly good deed that I've done. As policy, I'd much rather have fewer unwanted pregnancies and doctors more reluctant to perform abortions that banning it outright.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Still, there are bureaucrats and politicians meddling in personal medical decisions. If I was a woman and I was told by my doctor that my baby was not going to be viable, that it might have a brief and painful life before inevitably dying, yeah I'd want to abort, rather than pat myself on the back for this allegedly good deed that I've done. As policy, I'd much rather have fewer unwanted pregnancies and doctors more reluctant to perform abortions that banning it outright.

I don't think we as humans have any right to make that sort of decision. If the baby has any chance to live, let it live.

 

[kramerfan86]

See though in that case the baby isnt going to live. It IS going to die young, either it will die in misery or die without pain.

 

[LucyDuke]

That ethical system prioritizes breathing as long as possible whether you like it or not. If a baby experiences nothing but suffering, it's because god and nobody is allowed to question god.

I don't think the view deserves the slightest respect, but some people are pretty self-righteous about it.

 

[kramerfan86]

Its an entirely different conversation but the stance on euthanasia in this country is laughable. We show dogs and cats more decency than humans in that regard.

 

[LucyDuke]

It's related. The euthanasia factor is a significant part of the reason we have to have abortion rights.

 

[Akka]

Humanity= being a biologically independent (Which counts out cancer cells) human life.

A fetus, while connected to its mother, is biologically separate life.

Seems you ignored the point made, so I'll repeat it :

Is an arm a person ?
No.

Is someone having lost his four limbs a person ?
Yes.

Both have human DNA. What is the difference between the first and the second case ?
Sentience.

You may "don't think" sentience is the point, but well, you're wrong.

 

[Traitorfish]

What about the rest of my post?

But if your opposition to abortion is derived from a divine command theory of ethics, doesn't that mean that criminalising abortion amounts to legislating religion?

Am I not getting an answer on any of this?

 

[El_Machinae]

The thing is that the divine command really doesn't have anything to do with the debate. We all agree that homocide is something we have to be very careful with allowing. None of us want to allow immoral killing.

While the Catholic Church has declared the embryo morally important (so they're trying to legislate religious views), the majority of religions that're "pro-embryo" are that way because of social reasons, not religious reasons. They've thought things through, and decided that their faith believes that embryos are people ... but it's actually their beliefs that they're ascribing to the faith.

 

[bernie14]

That is a very strange point of view.
Asking a girl "Hey, I think we have a moral obligation to create as much life as possible. Wanne hook up?" does also not require assistance. While just as pulling the fat guy up, sex is a collective effort. I am amazed with what grandeur you just missed the point

Hm... as long as you only bluffed - I think so. Based on the reasoning, that your moral obligation to save the mans life outweighs the immorality of threatening someone to kill him or her. And this again is based on the reasoning that death - as the ultimate end of all joy - means a greater harm than a trauma for having being threatened by a gun. Choosing the lesser of two evils.

That strikes me as not very reasonable. Why can I support a law for whatever reason I like except religion? After all, a religious person is in the end also only concerned with what is "right". There are really worse reasons. Like being selfish.

well, how about if your fat guy is swinging on a rope and you can only reach him at some point in the future?....

by eliminating your female helper's choice by threat and putting the fat guy's life above other matters, it would seem that your code of "collective moral obligation" and "greater good" morality could be used not only to justify a pro life stance, but also rape

 

[Farm Boy]

well, how about if your fat guy is swinging on a rope and you can only reach him at some point in the future?....

by eliminating your female helper's choice by threat and putting the fat guy's life above other matters, it would seem that your code of "collective moral obligation" and "greater good" morality could be used not only to justify a pro life stance, but also rape

Quite a stretch, and no less offensive than somebody screaming baby-killer!

 

[bernie14]

Quite a stretch, and no less offensive than somebody screaming baby-killer!

i guess the fat guy could cause the rope to stretch , but there was absolutely no personal offence intended..."attack the argument, not the person" to be honest, i would be one to go out of my way to save the fat man and request the assistance of others.