Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I would impose my idea that swindling is wrong, I would also impose the belief that murder was also wrong. It all has to do with doing one's best to protect the rights of others, and us pro-lifers believe it is protecting the fetus' rights to life and happiness.Index said:Why do some people want to impose their ideas or beliefs on others? If the mother wants to have an abortion, she should be free to have one.
Starbuck said:Society's acceptance of abortion is the result of a solipsistic culture that values the self over all other considerations.
Once conceieved, the tiny mass of cells will, if left alone, barring any natural problems, become a human being. That it "doesn't feel pain" or "can't think" or "is not viable," is absolutley irrelevant. We are all continuously developing. It does not stop with birth. I am not the same man I was ten years ago, and am certainly not the same as I was at 5. Development starts with conception and ends with death. To stop the development during any stage is murder. No individual should claim a "right" to do this since it necessarily relies on the same individual. My three year old cannot survive without my direct involvement in his life. Does this mean he is "infringing" on my rights? Does this mean I have absolute control over his existence since he relies on me while I do not rely on him? If not, the argument that it is because he has a bunch more cells than an embryo, has developed the ability to experience pain, or can speak in monosyllabic utterances, is absolutely absurd.
To argue that a life can be terminated at any stage is a justification for murder, whether they are an embryo, an unproductive mentally and physically challenged person, or a doddering old woman.
To decide for someone else what constitutes an "acceptable" quality of life is also an exercise in unparalleled arrogance, as well as extraordinarily dangerous. Because someone doesn't have running water, adequate food, or any safeguards against horrific diseases is to condemn billions of people who lived prior to the twentieth century to death (as well as a great many in the 20th century). How can a group of people draw up what is considered a good quality of life for all of humanity? What is it based on, and does it ever change?
Since you can't suggest that killing a human life inside of you is ok, you must naturally refute its humanity. This is a sophistry that is so ingrained in the minds of contemporaries, a view such as the one I offered above will seem intellectually stunted or enveloped in a simpleton's morality, and easily disregarded. Therefore, I can, unfortunately, see no end in sight for this practice.
Starbuck said:To decide for someone else what constitutes an "acceptable" quality of life is also an exercise in unparalleled arrogance, as well as extraordinarily dangerous.
Revenant said:I would impose my idea that swindling is wrong, I would also impose the belief that murder was also wrong. It all has to do with doing one's best to protect the rights of others, and us pro-lifers believe it is protecting the fetus' rights to life and happiness.
I agree with Kinsao's response to Sansuikan San's hyposthetical(?) question.
Having a role in society means that you are connected emotionally and socially to others. Since one's identity is to a large degree determined by the world in which one exists and by the reflections of one's self that come from other people, I don't consider an unborn fetus a person. Its only connection is a physical one with the mother. Therefore I think that in determining whether the rights of the mother or unborn fetus should be upheld, I would say the mother takes priority due to her inclusion and participation in the social and phenomonological world.Revenant said:What defines what is a person and what is not? What does having a role in society mean?
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here...Revenant said:Would there not already be born people who don't meet this criteria?What of those who cannot function without our continued existence?
I have an a different view of that, since the goal of morality is happiness, then it makes sense to keep whatever ideal conditions for happiness there are as long as possible. There is a reason why we do not let suicidal people commit suicide (padded rooms), there is a reason why I do not easily let the life of a person in a coma go. All have the potential to experience happiness in the future, and so it is with the fetus. A potential criminal probably won't actually kill someone, they may rape, or hurt someone, but only a small percentage actually take the life of someone. At least I always give the benefit of the doubt to the ideal of happiness.Tsuyoiko said:I find it hard to agree with any arguments that look at 'potentiality'. At any given moment we can say A might become, or has a good chance to become B, but I don't think we can base our morality on it. I think moral issues have to be resolved in the present, e.g. looking at what this foetus is right now, is it OK to abort it? Looking in terms of potentiality, are we going to lock up unruly kids now, because of the likelihood they will turn into criminals? No, we deal with what they are at this moment. Yes, we do that with one eye on the future, but it is the present situation that we deal with, IMO.
I would say she is well within her right.Tsuyoiko said:I would argue she is within her rights, if that is the only way she can defend herself and her child.
I would say she is. In some ways I think the option of abortion causes people to take the easier route. She may have an emotionally difficult time, but most people are more resilient than they think. After a change in conditions, even for the worse, people most often return to their original setpoint of happiness. They work towards this, as the new perceptions they take on enable them to experience more happiness again, and it is happiness that everyone is after.Tsuyoiko said:Is a woman wrong to abort a foetus if she knows she cannot cope with pregnancy, childbirth and raising the child, or giving it up for adoption.
They are a big deal, but I absolutely believe that her discomfort for a the nine or ten months is in the best interest of the unborn being. The unborn being will then be able to experience life, and make his/her own search for happiness.Tsuyoiko said:I agree with those who believe that adoption is preferable to abortion, but what about the woman's right not to carry the baby to term? Pregnancy and childbirth are a big deal! I think a woman has every right to decide that she can't go through with it.
Do we decide lives on the role they play in society? A friendless welfare bum who lost his family in a fire, what of him? He gets a small apartment from welfare, and just a bit of money for food. He never talks to anyone, and social services checks on him once a month.Index said:Having a role in society means that you are connected emotionally and socially to others. Since one's identity is to a large degree determined by the world in which one exists and by the reflections of one's self that come from other people, I don't consider an unborn fetus a person. Its only connection is a physical one with the mother. Therefore I think that in determining whether the rights of the mother or unborn fetus should be upheld, I would say the mother takes priority due to her inclusion and participation in the social and phenomonological world.
What I am saying is that non-viability doesn't seem a valid reason to end anyone's existence. A fetus isn't 'viable' apart from the mother, but then so are so many people not viable without our continued assistance.Index said:I'm not quite sure what you are saying here...
Revenant said:Do we decide lives on the role they play in society? A friendless welfare bum who lost his family in a fire, what of him? He gets a small apartment from welfare, and just a bit of money for food. He never talks to anyone, and social services checks on him once a month.
Or let's take someone who is in a coma. They have been in a coma for quite some time, and as most coma patients go, they are neither moral persons nor moral agents. They don't have cognition, so they cannot be social people (and therefore be emotionally connected to anyone). I don't think that in their case, we can say it is alright to put them out.
What I am saying is that non-viability doesn't seem a valid reason to end anyone's existence. A fetus isn't 'viable' apart from the mother, but then so are so many people not viable without our continued assistance.
Also, there are already a lot of people that are a burden on society, but that isn't grounds to end them, so I don't see how that justifies the end of a fetus either.
Revenant said:Index, the decision is already up to the mother
I think your personal experiences have given you a valuable perspective. If I had similar experiences I might feel differently, but the issue of abortion hasn't affected me personally. I'm glad that everything turned out well for you in the end.Revenant said:This is one of the few issues that I am a bit fanatical about. I know that both my brother and I (were abortions more easily accesible) could have easily been ended, and I know that my wife suggested an abortion at first when she first found out she was pregnant, just cause we weren't terribly financially stable. But I look at him now, and I am grateful to have him.
This thread has been viewed 70434 times.