Go to first unread
Back
to top
Abortion
WatchThis discussion is closed.
Report
#61
(Original post by Speciez99)
ok thanks for your generalisations, so when does the baby become self aware and how can u detect it? surely that varies from baby to baby and thus is pretty ineffective in law?
ok thanks for your generalisations, so when does the baby become self aware and how can u detect it? surely that varies from baby to baby and thus is pretty ineffective in law?
I don't think there is really any doubt that no foetus is self-aware, and babies aren't, either, for some time after birth.
So that solves the abortion issue, at least.
0
Report
#62
(Original post by corey)
No, I disagree with it because of what it results in, my beliefs on morality are no the issue here.
No, I disagree with it because of what it results in, my beliefs on morality are no the issue here.
i agree corey! finally, some comman ground! *sighs with relief*
0
Report
#63
(Original post by corey)
No, I disagree with it because of what it results in, my beliefs on morality are no the issue here.
No, I disagree with it because of what it results in, my beliefs on morality are no the issue here.
0
Report
#64
(Original post by corey)
No, I disagree with it because of what it results in, my beliefs on morality are no the issue here.
No, I disagree with it because of what it results in, my beliefs on morality are no the issue here.
What is your justification for this, if those acts aren't wrong in themselves?
(not having a go...genuinely interested
)
0
Report
#65
(Original post by corey)
I disagree with seeing this from a utiltarion viewpoint (study Philosophy?) as i don't believe it is really a valid ethical theory because it results in many perverse actions being justified.
I disagree with seeing this from a utiltarion viewpoint (study Philosophy?) as i don't believe it is really a valid ethical theory because it results in many perverse actions being justified.
You were saying that Speciez99's argument is inconsistant. I have tried to show that according to at least one category of ethical systems (namely utilitarianism), his/her argument makes sense.
So, Speciez99's argument is perfectly valid. You may not agree with the conclusion of that argument, but that's down to the premises, which you do not agree with.
0
(Original post by zizero)
I am not trying to advocate utilitarianism.
You were saying that Speciez99's argument is inconsistant. I have tried to show that according to at least one category of ethical systems (namely utilitarianism), his/her argument makes sense.
So, Speciez99's argument is perfectly valid. You may not agree with the conclusion of that argument, but that's down to the premises, which you do not agree with.
I am not trying to advocate utilitarianism.
You were saying that Speciez99's argument is inconsistant. I have tried to show that according to at least one category of ethical systems (namely utilitarianism), his/her argument makes sense.
So, Speciez99's argument is perfectly valid. You may not agree with the conclusion of that argument, but that's down to the premises, which you do not agree with.
0
Report
#67
(Original post by zizero)
Interesting, you disagree with consequencialist ethics (ethics that determine an action's moral value depending on what it results in) because of what they result in...
Interesting, you disagree with consequencialist ethics (ethics that determine an action's moral value depending on what it results in) because of what they result in...
(on your pervious post - I did not say that the Catergorical Imperative was my reason for thinking abortion was wrong, just pointing out an objection to ultilarinism.)
0
Report
#68
(Original post by zizero)
I am not trying to advocate utilitarianism.
You were saying that Speciez99's argument is inconsistant. I have tried to show that according to at least one category of ethical systems (namely utilitarianism), his/her argument makes sense.
So, Speciez99's argument is perfectly valid. You may not agree with the conclusion of that argument, but that's down to the premises, which you do not agree with.
I am not trying to advocate utilitarianism.
You were saying that Speciez99's argument is inconsistant. I have tried to show that according to at least one category of ethical systems (namely utilitarianism), his/her argument makes sense.
So, Speciez99's argument is perfectly valid. You may not agree with the conclusion of that argument, but that's down to the premises, which you do not agree with.
0
Report
#69
(Original post by zizero)
Interesting, you disagree with consequencialist ethics (ethics that determine an action's moral value depending on what it results in) because of what they result in...
Interesting, you disagree with consequencialist ethics (ethics that determine an action's moral value depending on what it results in) because of what they result in...
0
Report
#70
(Original post by Speciez99)
his! lol i didnt think this is where the thread was going. Corey u seem to ignore the right of the women over her body which is what seems to make my arguement inconsistant
his! lol i didnt think this is where the thread was going. Corey u seem to ignore the right of the women over her body which is what seems to make my arguement inconsistant
! I was hoping you were female between 16 and 18, extremely attractive etc. ...
0
Report
#71
(Original post by llama boy)
I don't think he said he disagreed with consequenialism (indeed, that would be horribly inconsistant), only utilitarianism, which is just one branch of consequenialism.
I don't think he said he disagreed with consequenialism (indeed, that would be horribly inconsistant), only utilitarianism, which is just one branch of consequenialism.
You're right of course. Opposing utilitarianism does not imply opposing consequentialism.
0
(Original post by zizero)
Sh..oot! ! I was hoping you were female between 16 and 18, extremely attractive etc. ...
Sh..oot! ! I was hoping you were female between 16 and 18, extremely attractive etc. ...
sorry to dissappoint
0
Report
#73
(Original post by zizero)
Why should an early-stage foetus have more rights than an animal like say - a horse.
A horse is a more sophisticated and more developed being. Importantly, the horse's nervous system is much more developed than the foetus', hence the horse can "feel" much better and can potentially suffer much more.
So, what is it, that gives this "bunch of cells" a superior status to the horse, which is a superior being?
The fact that the "buch of cells" happen to belong to the kind of the homo sapiens is not really a justification: Why should we be selective on the sole basis of a being's belonging to a certain race? Is that not the same as for instance banning black people to use buses, just because they are black?
The reason humans have more rights than animals is that they are superior beings. Yet, foetuses are inferior to many animals, and hence they do not qualify for more rights than those animals.
Why should an early-stage foetus have more rights than an animal like say - a horse.
A horse is a more sophisticated and more developed being. Importantly, the horse's nervous system is much more developed than the foetus', hence the horse can "feel" much better and can potentially suffer much more.
So, what is it, that gives this "bunch of cells" a superior status to the horse, which is a superior being?
The fact that the "buch of cells" happen to belong to the kind of the homo sapiens is not really a justification: Why should we be selective on the sole basis of a being's belonging to a certain race? Is that not the same as for instance banning black people to use buses, just because they are black?
The reason humans have more rights than animals is that they are superior beings. Yet, foetuses are inferior to many animals, and hence they do not qualify for more rights than those animals.
If we're talking about "potential", then the argument must surely be that the foetus has the potential to become a full human being, if it is not already considered so. If left alone, and discounting miscarriage or illness, then that foetus will become a walking, talking, thinking human.
Following your argument, why not infanticide as well? Since many animals- chimps, dogs etc. are considered more intelligent that young children, and we put down dogs all the time, why not just kill the little toddler?
I realise this is a very contentious thing to say and probably not what you meant at all, but I just want to highlight a point of your argument, and ask at what stage you believe the foetus becomes a person. Does some magical transformation happen as it leaves the womb?
Personally I am undecided on this issue. I do not think it should be so readily on demand but only available in special circumstances eg rape.
0
Report
#74
(Original post by Mr White)
Take back the night, Bigcnee. You can't dictate what must be done in every situation with one big umbrella-bracket law. Surely exceptions must be made?
Take back the night, Bigcnee. You can't dictate what must be done in every situation with one big umbrella-bracket law. Surely exceptions must be made?
0
Report
#75
(Original post by Speciez99)
i think it is all or nothing and think it should be allowed, girls who have been raped should not be forced to have the rapist child even extreme pro life groups acknowledge, that inculding the catholic church
i think it is all or nothing and think it should be allowed, girls who have been raped should not be forced to have the rapist child even extreme pro life groups acknowledge, that inculding the catholic church
0
Report
#76
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Not true.
Not true.
You're right. As far as I'm aware the Catholic Church makes no exceptions. It recognises rape as a terrible crime, and in religious terms a violation of the sanctity or marriage, but sees abortion as two wrongs not making a right.
0
Report
#77
(Original post by curryADD)
according to christanity, abortion is wrong. however, not all people are christian, some people are atheists and dont believe that killing a fetus, is in fact, killing.
according to christanity, abortion is wrong. however, not all people are christian, some people are atheists and dont believe that killing a fetus, is in fact, killing.
(Original post by curryadd)
that is my basis of argument for abortions legality.
that is my basis of argument for abortions legality.
0
Report
#78
(Original post by hitchhiker_13)
You're right. As far as I'm aware the Catholic Church makes no exceptions. It recognises rape as a terrible crime, and in religious terms a violation of the sanctity or marriage, but sees abortion as two wrongs not making a right.
You're right. As far as I'm aware the Catholic Church makes no exceptions. It recognises rape as a terrible crime, and in religious terms a violation of the sanctity or marriage, but sees abortion as two wrongs not making a right.
0
Report
#79
(Original post by Speciez99)
(no religious views please)
(no religious views please)
Why not? Religion is important to some people, and they should be just as entitled to express their views as others.
0
Report
#80
(Original post by hitchhiker_13)
Why not? Religion is important to some people, and they should be just as entitled to express their views as others.
Why not? Religion is important to some people, and they should be just as entitled to express their views as others.
0
X
new posts
