17 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczPeople can choose to do whatever they want for the sake of convenience, as long as they act in ways that are morally permissible. To claim that people cannot have abortions for the sake of convenience presupposes that doing so violates some moral constraint. Since that's precisely what's at issue in a debate about abortion, you're just begging the question. If fetuses do not morally matter, then abortions for the sake of convenience are permissible. So, yeah, you do need an argument.
Why does there need to be an argument? I think I have given examples of some of the reasons one gives for abortions that I categorized as convenience. Do you think anybody that has one of these reasons should terminate if they so choose? Should a life that had nothing to do with the conception pay with its own life, for the convenience of the mother? Is this your position?
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrWell, is it morally wrong to take a life for convenience? Is it morally wrong to take innocent life for convenience?
People can choose to do whatever they want for the sake of convenience, as long as they act in ways that are morally permissible. To claim that people cannot have abortions for the sake of convenience presupposes that doing so violates some moral constraint. Since that's precisely what's at issue in a debate about abortion, you're just begging the question. ...[text shortened]... en abortions for the sake of convenience are permissible. So, yeah, you do need an argument.
I really would rather not have the debate of whose morals, because everybody has different ideas about this. Let’s answer the 2 questions above? Let's make it more personal...
Do you think it is morally wrong to take a life for convenience? Do you think it is morally wrong to take innocent life for convenience?
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczHave you ever had a salad? Have you ever taken antibiotics? But those lives are innocent... So, yes, it's fine to take a life for convenience if the life taken does not belong to an entity that morally matters. If you want to establish that abortion for convenience is wrong, then you have to first establish that the life of a fetus morally matters. Claiming that the life of a fetus matters because it is a member of the human species doesn't carry an weight, as I demonstrated above. So, do you have an argument? Again, do you have an argument?
Well, is it morally wrong to take a life for convenience? Is it morally wrong to take innocent life for convenience?
I really would rather not have the debate of whose morals, because everybody has different ideas about this. Let’s answer the 2 questions above? Let's make it more personal...
Do you think it is morally wrong to take a life for convenience? Do you think it is morally wrong to take innocent life for convenience?
Originally posted by kd2aczYou have to remember, the people you are dealing with literally don't believe that a fetus is "a life." They think it is a lifeless mass, worth absolutely zero, pretty much up until the very moment it takes its first breath outside the womb. And even then, some pro-abortion zealots think it's still worthless for a certain amount of time. In my opinion, the "worth" these folks are assigning to the baby is a "moral" worth, and they assign it a zero value in an attempt to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing and ease their conscience.
Well, is it morally wrong to take a life for convenience? Is it morally wrong to take innocent life for convenience?
Anyway, since they don't believe a pre-birthed baby is "a life," your argument falls on deaf ears as soon as it is uttered. Convenience doesn't come into play in this (to them), anymore than it would be considered a "convenience" to kill a roach, or eat lettuce.
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidLearn to read. We do think fetuses are alive. We do think fetuses are biologically human. We just don't think that morally matters.
You have to remember, the people you are dealing with literally don't believe that a fetus is "a life." They think it is a lifeless mass, worth absolutely zero, pretty much up until the very moment it takes its first breath outside the womb. And even then, some pro-abortion zealots think it's still worthless for a certain amount of time. In my opinion, th ...[text shortened]... o value in an attempt to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing and ease their conscience.
Originally posted by bbarrYou need to learn to read. I never said you don't think fetuses are alive. And I never said you think fetuses are bilogically inhuman.
Learn to read. We do think fetuses are alive. We do think fetuses are biologically human. We just don't think that morally matters.
*edit*
There is a difference between "a life" and a biological entity that functions. When the person asked about the moral significance of taking "a life," it was never meant to be equivocated with killing a plant or a bug.
*edit 2*
I can see where you *might* have misunderstood me. I edited my comment above yours for clarification, after you quoted me. I think you might understand my position better by reading the revised statement.
Sorry about my editing. I need to get out of the habit.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydid
You need to learn to read. I never said you don't think fetuses are alive. And I never said you think fetuses are bilogically inhuman.
You teach classes? Really?
... You have to remember, the people you are dealing with literally don't believe that a fetus
is "a life." They think it is a lifeless mass, ...
Explain how that can be interpreted any way other your saying that we don't think a foetus is alive.
Your words... have fun eating them.
Originally posted by googlefudge... You have to remember, the people you are dealing with literally don't believe that a fetus...
is "a life." [b]They think it is a lifeless mass,
Explain how that can be interpreted any way other your saying that we don't think a foetus is alive.
Your words... have fun eating them.[/b]See above.
Obviously by "lifeless mass" I don't literally mean something that is dead. How could I???? "Lifeless mass" is term coined by abortion advocates, not me, and quite clearly it involves something other than the literalest of literal meanings, else all aborted fetus are already considered dead to the people who use the term.
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidAn entity that is alive is an entity that possesses a life. That's what the words mean. Whether the life of a fetus and the life of a plant or bug are morally equivalent is precisely what is at issue. You don't just get to stipulate a difference. You need an argument. On my account, there is a clear difference between the life of a person and the life of a plant or bug. Persons have an inner, mental life such that things can go better or worse for them; they can suffer, they can be have their autonomy undermined, etc. The difference is that persons are subjects of experience, while plants and bugs are not. Fetuses are not subjects of experience, they cannot suffer, they cannot have their autonomy undermined. They are like plants and bugs in that respect. If there is some reason to accord fetuses more moral importance than plants or bugs that does not rely on mere stipulation about the putative importance of membership in the human species, I'd love to hear it. And yes, I teach classes about this. Perhaps it would behoove you to take one. That way, you'd at least have something relevant to contribute other than your indignation.
You need to learn to read. I never said you don't think fetuses are alive. And I never said you think fetuses are bilogically inhuman.
*edit*
There is a difference between "a life" and a biological entity that functions. When the person asked about the moral significance of taking "a life," it was never meant to be equivocated with killing a plant o ...[text shortened]... reading the revised statement.
Sorry about my editing. I need to get out of the habit.
18 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrYou both taught me something. I googled "lifeless mass" and found that the reason that term has been stuck in my head, is because the pro-life people have used it in endless articles to describe with the pro-abortion people think.
An entity that is alive is an entity that possesses a life. That's what the words mean. Whether the life of a fetus and the life of a plant or bug are morally equivalent is precisely what is at issue. You don't just get to stipulate a difference. You need an argument. On my account, there is a clear difference between the life of a person and the li That way, you'd at least have something relevant to contribute other than your indignation.
I stand corrected--sadly this is twice in 2 days. The term I used is technically inaccurate.
However, I could simply change "lifeless" mass to "meaningless mass of tissue" and my point would still stand. When the person asked how one could justify "taking a life" for convenience, it still falls on deaf ears. Because pro-abortionists don't equivocate an abortion to "taking a life." Am I right on that? It boils down to what the life is worth, not whether or not its heart is beating.
Technically my point was wrong because I used an incorrect term. But the spirit of my argument still stands, and bbarr validated it with his claim that the fetus, in his mind, is meaningless, i.e. it doesn't matter "morally."
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczyou didnt answer the question, is taking the morning after pill morally wrong?
I think this question is like asking... are you killing a senior citizen if you kill a 20 something person. The journey through life... infancy, adolescence, adulthood, senior years, begins at conception, when the sperm meets the egg.
The point at which life begins is really not a hard concept, we muddy it up when we use different words to describe what ...[text shortened]... be pointless, especially for the many here that claim to be scientists. It is at conception!
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidSorry, I get upset about this and then get snarky. Look, I do think that fetuses in the third trimester matter. I do think that having a mind makes a profound moral difference. That's why I care about animal rights. I just don't think that fetuses matter early on. That's where the arguments have lead me, after almost 20 years of reading and thinking and writing and teaching about ethics. But I am open to new arguments! Really, I am. I just don't lend much credence to talk about souls or talk about the inherent importance of membership in the human species. And I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-woman.
You both taught me something. I googled "lifeless mass" and found that the reason that term has been stuck in my head, is because the pro-life people have used it in endless articles to describe with the pro-abortion people think.
I stand corrected--sadly this is twice in 2 days. The term I used is technically inaccurate.
However, I could simply chan ...[text shortened]... aim that the fetus, in his mind, is meaningless, i.e. it doesn't matter "morally."
18 Nov 12
I will add by saying kd2acz's question is incorrectly dismissed. The respondents have gone far in admitting that abortion is, in fact, the taking of human life. Inasmuch, it cannot justifiably be equated with eating a vegetable or killing an insect. We all must agree; a human life is not the same as a plant or a bug. I argue that pro-abortion fans arbitrarily assign the moral value of a living human fetus with that of a plant or a bug, in order to ease their conscience. My argument cannot be proven or disproven as this is a matter of ones own moral fiber and personal, private thinking.
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrI get it and thanks for the message, I got snarky too. I type as fast as I think, and that can get me into trouble at times. And I'm not a good communicator, which leads to several edits before I can get something right.
Sorry, I get upset about this and then get snarky. Look, I do think that fetuses in the third trimester matter. I do think that having a mind makes a profound moral difference. That's why I care about animal rights. I just don't think that fetuses matter early on. That's where the arguments have lead me, after almost 20 years of reading and thinking and w ...[text shortened]... importance of membership in the human species. And I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-woman.
As far as the pro-woman thing, my thought is--I think the value of a human fetus trumps the inconvience placed on a woman that results from her permiscuity. I don't mean to be hateful or blunt, but I'm being honest.
18 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidWhere is your argument! I've given mine above in support of personhood rather than biological humanness as morally criterial. Arbitrariness? That's hardly fair.
I will add by saying kd2acz's question is incorrectly dismissed. The respondents have gone far in admitting that abortion is, in fact, the taking of human life. Inasmuch, it cannot justifiably be equated with eating a vegetable or killing an insect. We all must agree; a human life is not the same as a plant or a bug. I argue that pro-abortion fans arbitr ...[text shortened]... proven or disproven as this is a matter of ones own moral fiber and personal, private thinking.