Why I'm becoming more pro-choice

Originally posted by telerion
What about in the case of war? Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed many innocent people. The us invasion of Iraq did as well. If we acted under the principle that innocent life could never be taken for any reason we'd be unable to exercise modern warfare. Personally this whole issue is rife with grey areas and it seems no matter where one tries to draw a line a contradiction or at least an imposing philosophical dilemma arises.

I would argue that perhaps such instances may not be justifiable, even though some could be. However, you are comparing apples to orranges in that you discuss actively seeking to kill innocent life as where the other scenerio is simply collateral or unintentional damage.

Originally posted by whodey
I would argue that perhaps such instances may not be justifiable, even though some could be. However, you are comparing apples to orranges in that you discuss actively seeking to kill innocent life as where the other scenerio is simply collateral or unintentional damage.

But it is justified to kill innocent life sometimes. I think cases can be made in other circumstances as well. For instance, a severely deformed child that is beyond help will die after birth within a few very painful hours. Though admittedly rare, I believe that a merciful and deadly administration of drugs can be justified in the instances. In fact, I'd be willing to take the position that it is morally the correct action to take.

I could give you several other moral dilemmas that would make you refine your rule about when it is acceptable to kill innocent life (even intentionally). So as not to divert the thread unnecessarily, I'll skip them. In the end, you believe that abortion (under no circumstances?) has a justification, while I do. Clearly, hard and fast rules like "innocent life should never be destroyed" or "life begins at X point in pregnancy" will run into moral dilemmas eventually. As a consequence we are left arguing over inconvenient wrinkles in otherwise elegant moral philosophies.

Originally posted by whodey
I would say that the 99 year old is of far less value than the unborn child. At least the unborn child has the potential to be a future slave of the state in which they are born to serve the fatherland of their respective country. All the 99 year old does is such the life out of the states treasury as they just sit around waiting to die. Therefore, perhaps inttead of killing the unborn we should be killing the elderly?

You haven't really thought this through. A random man and woman meeting have the potential to make a human life. Does that mean women are morally obliged to always be pregnant if they can be?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You haven't really thought this through. A random man and woman meeting have the potential to make a human life. Does that mean women are morally obliged to always be pregnant if they can be?

I have no idea what you are asking or why you are asking it?

You stumped me mate.

Originally posted by telerion
But it is justified to kill innocent life sometimes. I think cases can be made in other circumstances as well. For instance, a severely deformed child that is beyond help will die after birth within a few very painful hours. Though admittedly rare, I believe that a merciful and deadly administration of drugs can be justified in the instances. In fact, I ...[text shortened]... ce we are left arguing over inconvenient wrinkles in otherwise elegant moral philosophies.

Let me rephrase. It is like the Mosaic law, Thou shalt not kill. Of course, the goal is to preserve life, if possible, but there are exceptions which we both recognize. Having said that, it is a far cry from what is going on today with abortion on demand, would you not agree?

Originally posted by whodey
I would argue that perhaps such instances may not be justifiable, even though some could be. However, you are comparing apples to orranges in that you discuss actively seeking to kill innocent life as where the other scenerio is simply collateral or unintentional damage.

Are you for forcing an 11 or 12 year old rape victim to carry the fetus to term, even with all of the physical and emotional trama that involves?

As I've shown you IT HAPPENS.

My psychic powers tell me you're doing to dance, dodge or ignore this question. I guess some people can't hack the tough questions.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Are you for forcing an 11 or 12 year old rape victim to carry the fetus to term, even with all of the physical and emotional trama that involves?

As I've shown you IT HAPPENS.

My psychic powers tell me you're doing to dance, dodge or ignore this question. I guess some people can't hack the tough questions.

As I said before, it is either a human life or it is not. The only arguement could be that it is OK to kill someone in order to spare another potential emotional scars, which I guess is your position.

Originally posted by whodey
I have no idea what you are asking or why you are asking it?

You stumped me mate.

I'm saying that "potential for human life" is a rather useless criterion.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm saying that "potential for human life" is a rather useless criterion.

When I said "potential" I was merely looking at life from a utilitarian perspective, which you brought up. This perspective looks at the potential benefit for society in each human being and then assesses which is of greater value. I, however, reject such measurements and prefer to treat all human beings as being created equal as held by the Constitution.

Originally posted by whodey
As I said before, it is either a human life or it is not. The only arguement could be that it is OK to kill someone in order to spare another potential emotional scars, which I guess is your position.

So does that mean yes? You would have the government force the parents and the child to carry it to term?

Originally posted by whodey
When I said "potential" I was merely looking at life from a utilitarian perspective, which you brought up. This perspective looks at the potential benefit for society in each human being and then assesses which is of greater value. I, however, reject such measurements and prefer to treat all human beings as being created equal as held by the Constitution.

So, if what you say is true, then killing anyone is wrong, right?

So a soldier killing an enemy combatant would be wrong in your view, yes?

Or are there "exceptions"? But doesn't the inclusion of "exceptions" imply that not everyone is of equal "worth"? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
So does that mean yes? You would have the government force the parents and the child to carry it to term?

I would say that you would have to protect its life, yes. Of course, not all pro-lifers would agree and would make provisions for such tragic circumstances. However, you could make provisions for such occurences and still outlaw abortion on demand so it is a nonsequitor.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So, if what you say is true, then killing anyone is wrong, right?

So a soldier killing an enemy combatant would be wrong in your view, yes?

Or are there "exceptions"? But doesn't the inclusion of "exceptions" imply that not everyone is of equal "worth"? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

Killing on a battlefield is a far different matter than the utilitarian approach to trying to calculate which life is of more value than the other. Killing someone in self defense is another example. In such instances, no one is equating value, rather, it is arbitrary and is simple surivival. Having said that, killing in general is not "good" and SHOULD be avoided if possible......unless you are "pro-choice" or pro-war.

Originally posted by whodey
Killing on a battlefield is a far different matter than the utilitarian approach to trying to calculate which life is of more value than the other. Killing someone in self defense is another example. In such instances, no one is equating value, rather, it is arbitrary and is simple surivival. Having said that, killing in general is not "good" and SHOULD be avoided if possible......unless you are "pro-choice" or pro-war.

Right now, we are discussing "value" in the sense that what is most morally right to do, has the most "value". So you cannot dodge the question by claiming it has nothing to do with utilitarianism because it does. Allowing exceptions of any kind means you most forego the notion that all human lives are of equal worth. Either killing humans is sometimes allowed (and then you must be specific on when and why) or it is not allowed at all.

Originally posted by whodey
I would say that you would have to protect its life, yes. Of course, not all pro-lifers would agree and would make provisions for such tragic circumstances. However, you could make provisions for such occurences and still outlaw abortion on demand so it is a nonsequitor.

And what about the life of the child who was raped?