[QUOTE=Caesar;32394735]I understand that it can be traumatic for rape victims, but there is no reason why the baby cannot be put up for adoption if all else fails.[/QUOTE]
Might be cool for the child too. Imagine how nice its to find out how you are adopted when you are 15. Maybe find out who your mother is when you get 18. And then find out your dad is in jail for rape when you turn 20.
Rape victims should be given the chance to abort every time. Just like before mentioned, 9 months of pain and stuff because you got pregnant would totally mess up everything in your life for that time and even after it you wouldn't be having a hard time, imagine all the because you got raped?
[QUOTE=RusMar;32394630]That's a really bad excuse in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
No, that is not a bad excuse.
[QUOTE=RusMar;32394755]I'm pro-choice just because I believe you should be able to do whatever you want with your own body but I would like to point out that the baby that is getting killed didn't do anything to deserve it.
I would highly advise adoption over it though.[/QUOTE]
A lump of cells is not sentient so using the argument that appeals to emotion is pretty worthless. Yes eventually that clump of cells will multiply and form a human being, but that's a shallow argument.
I'm completely for abortions, but I think some term limits need to be enforced. If you're past 6 months pregnant I am conflicted whether or not you should be able to abort the child. On one hand, it still isn't born, and it's better to get rid of it than for it to be neglected and die. On the other hand though, it is pretty much fully formed, and that's when it gets into the grey area of it being a living human or not. I also think that comes down to personal responsibility. There was more than enough time to have made a decision on whether or not to abort, past 6 months is not the time to make such a decision.
Still, I'm not sure entirely what to think of late term abortions.
Nobody likes abortions, but I think it's necessary to have the option if the need be.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394925]
Kind off of topic, but do you believe murder is wrong, or is this for the sake of the debate?[/QUOTE]
Murder is not inherently wrong. There are conceivable circumstances where taking another person's life is the correct choice. I believe the only morally relevant object is happiness. Life is not intrinsically morally valuable.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32394684]If you're so pro life, why don't you donate a kidney? Doesn't the chance at life overshadow you missing an organ?
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
Neither are old people: They're pretty much a decaying organism, but we don't kill old people (though we should totally kill old people.[/QUOTE]
Funny you should say that, as I already donated a kidney and gave blood a few times, and when I die, I plan to donate all my organs.
But old people are alive. I really don't see the logic in that statement.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394925]-Because life is an important thing, people take for granted that they exist and are able to experience everything around them.
-Because that decision gets in the way of someone else's right to live.
-Now that is just flat out silly. I never said anything about churning out people, I just believe once conceived, the fetus should be given the chance to live. That is quite different from what you just said there.
-An egg is developing into a child, a sperm and egg are not developing. If left alone, a fertilized egg will naturally grow into a child, something sperm and eggs don't do.
Lastly, if it's choices end up preventing a life later in it's life, then everything I said still applies. Also, if you have a child you don't have to "devote the rest of your life to unwanted childrearing", tell me why adoption is not a valid way to avoid that. [/QUOTE]
The first statement is unsupported: why is life important? Life is instrumentally valuable because it allows us to experience fulfillment. Life for life's sake means nothing morally relevant.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32395032]Murder is not inherently wrong. There are conceivable circumstances where taking another person's life is the correct choice. I believe the only morally relevant object is happiness. Life is not intrinsically morally valuable.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain those circumstances? Also that is quite a selfish way to look at things, the happiness of others is not relevant or what?
I am for abortion, as I don't "rely on" on the religious traditions that regard abortion as a "sin". Some people think it is killing the baby, but as the baby wasn't born or couldn't think anyways, i don't think it matters. It would be sad being a mom as a 16-year old, for example.
[QUOTE=ffffff-;32394941]Surely, when all is said and done, there is little point in asking the question in the first place. Science has done a perfectly good job of closing the door on the argument, and it has done it without the aid of philosophy. Ergo, there is no need for questions such as "Why should we bother circumventing the morality debate?". The focus is not on the 'should' assertion, it is on how philosophy was not required to solve the debate.
Of course there is no completely happy-go-lucky option with abortion. As you quite rightly say there is "no fourth option". I should have been more specific in my post, what I mean to say is [I]the better[/I] solutions can be proposed an adopted. What these solutions may be I can only guess at.[/QUOTE]
How can there be a "better" option without an appeal to morality? Every step of the way you're appealing to morality. You can't appeal to morality without appealing to philosophy. All I'm trying to argue is that the position you have, where philosophy isn't valuable, or even second-rate to science, is simply absurd. Saying we shouldn't appeal to philosophy is literally the same as saying we shouldn't appeal to valid deductive reasoning.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32395032]Murder is not inherently wrong. There are conceivable circumstances where taking another person's life is the correct choice. I believe the only morally relevant object is happiness. Life is not intrinsically morally valuable.[/QUOTE]
Not to detract from the topic, but I disagree entirely. The right to life supersedes everything. It doesn't matter if someone is threatening your life or not, you do not have the right to take their life. I believe you have the right to take whatever means necessary to secure your existence, apart from the killing of another human being.
Now, that's an idealistic thought. If a man bursts into your home brandishing a weapon and begins slaughtering everyone you take an action. It would be ideal if you could simply detain the man, but that isn't always possible; that's understandable.
Actually I explained this in a pretty shitty way. Ignore it really.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32395091]Can you explain those circumstances? Also that is quite a selfish way to look at things, the happiness of others is not relevant or what?[/QUOTE]
Selfish? It is literally the opposite of selfish to say that happiness is morally valuable. I'm not biased towards my own happiness (philosophically speaking) so how can I be selfish?
Also, I believe murder is - like absolutely every action - the morally right action when the action leads to greater happiness than omission of the action.
I'm pro-abortion.
I'd say that teenagers should be allowed to have abortions, they're not ready for a damn baby! Also, rape victims should be allowed to have abortions too.
However, when people use abortion as a birth control, then I think it's crossing a line.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;32395154]Not to detract from the topic, but I disagree entirely. The right to life supersedes everything. It doesn't matter if someone is threatening your life or not, you do not have the right to take their life. I believe you have the right to take whatever means necessary to secure your existence, apart from the killing of another human being.
Now, that's an idealistic thought. If a man bursts into your home brandishing a weapon and begins slaughtering everyone you take an action. It would be ideal if you could simply detain the man, but that isn't always possible; that's understandable.
Actually I explained this in a pretty shitty way. Ignore it really.[/QUOTE]
Okay so we're in a room of a thousand people. They're all being fed through a drip and they can be sustained for a normal lifespan, they can reproduce to bring more people into the room, but their standard of life is absolutely fucking awful.
The guy in charge is an absolute cunt, detaining the people against their will and won't compromise. You have the choice of either flicking a switch and killing him painlessly to set the people free so they can lead happy lives or respecting his absolute inalienable right to life.
[QUOTE=TheIceman;32395160]I'm pro-abortion.
I'd say that teenagers should be allowed to have abortions, they're not ready for a damn baby! Also, rape victims should be allowed to have abortions too.
However, when people use abortion as a birth control, then I think it's crossing a line.[/QUOTE]
I really doubt anyone is ready to take abortion as birth control. For most women, having to go through abortion once is enough to definitely decide to use protection.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32395114]How can there be a "better" option without an appeal to morality? Every step of the way you're appealing to morality. You can't appeal to morality without appealing to philosophy. All I'm trying to argue is that the position you have, where philosophy isn't valuable, or even second-rate to science, is simply absurd. Saying we shouldn't appeal to philosophy is literally the same as saying we shouldn't appeal to valid deductive reasoning.[/QUOTE]
'Better' options present themselves readily enough with the backing of concise information obtained from testing. No moral debate is needed there. Also, I am not saying that philosophy should be discounted completely - all I have said is that science is better equipped to tackle some moral debates than philosophy.
Honestly I don't think I'd be able to enjoy sex if I knew I'd have to raise a child if for whatever reason the contraception didn't work. If my girlfriend wasn't willing to abort in the unlikely event of pregnancy I wouldn't be able to sleep with her; that simple.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32395259]Okay so we're in a room of a thousand people. They're all being fed through a drip and they can be sustained for a normal lifespan, they can reproduce to bring more people into the room, but their standard of life is absolutely fucking awful.
The guy in charge is an absolute cunt, detaining the people against their will and won't compromise. You have the choice of either flicking a switch and killing him painlessly to set the people free so they can lead happy lives or respecting his absolute inalienable right to life.[/QUOTE]
I know, I did a poor job of explaining it, hence my edit. I think it's part of the idealist in me, but I need to realize that human nature isn't always positive relationship I'd like it to believe.
You're absolutely right, if some guy is abusing thousands of human lives then something should definitely be done. Notice how I'm not advocating the act of killing him. That should be the ultimate last resort.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32395259]Okay so we're in a room of a thousand people. They're all being fed through a drip and they can be sustained for a normal lifespan, they can reproduce to bring more people into the room, but their standard of life is absolutely fucking awful.
The guy in charge is an absolute cunt, detaining the people against their will and won't compromise. You have the choice of either flicking a switch and killing him painlessly to set the people free so they can lead happy lives or respecting his absolute inalienable right to life.[/QUOTE]
I know, I did a poor job of explaining it, hence my edit. I think it's part of the idealist in me, but I need to realize that human nature isn't always positive relationship I'd like it to believe.
You're absolutely right, if some guy is abusing thousands of human lives then something should definitely be done. Notice how I'm not advocating the act of killing him. That should be the ultimate last resort.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32395155]Selfish? It is literally the opposite of selfish to say that happiness is morally valuable. I'm not biased towards my own happiness (philosophically speaking) so how can I be selfish?
Also, I believe murder is - like absolutely every action - the morally right action when the action leads to greater happiness than omission of the action.[/QUOTE]
When you talk about it, I am slightly confused on what you mean. Are you saying if someone is making your life a little shittier, it is perfectly acceptable to murder them for the sake of your own happiness?
[QUOTE=ffffff-;32395299]'Better' options present themselves readily enough with the backing of concise information obtained from testing. No moral debate is needed there. Also, I am not saying that philosophy should be discounted completely - all I have said is that science is better equipped to tackle some moral debates than philosophy.[/QUOTE]
[i]NO IT ISN'T[/i]
Science is LITERALLY INCAPABLE of tackling moral debates. You literally can't participate in moral debates without some kind of moral philosophy. Science is absolutely devoid of morality. You cannot make a moral claim without philosophy. That's literally all there is to it, no buts.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32395301]Honestly I don't think I'd be able to enjoy sex if I knew I'd have to raise a child if for whatever reason the contraception didn't work. If my girlfriend wasn't willing to abort in the unlikely event of pregnancy I wouldn't be able to sleep with her; that simple.[/QUOTE]
Anal solves a lot of problems :v:
But yeah, I get your point. Though I'm not really sure if your girlfriend went through the same thought, you'd still have sex with her - knowing contraception can fail and that, in that eventuality, she'd have to get an abortion has to be rather mood-killing.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32395331]When you talk about it, I am slightly confused on what you mean. Are you saying if someone is making your life a little shittier, it is perfectly acceptable to murder them for the sake of your own happiness?[/QUOTE]
No; you're getting my utilitarianism confused with objectivism.
Utilitarianism = the belief that the happiness of EVERY PERSON is morally valuable.
Objectivism = the belief that ONLY MY HAPPINESS is morally valuable.
I am the first one.
I'm saying that if killing someone makes the world overall a happier place than not killing them, you have a moral obligation to do it.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;32395310]You're absolutely right, if some guy is abusing thousands of human lives then something should definitely be done. Notice how I'm not advocating the act of killing him. That should be the ultimate last resort.[/QUOTE]
As long as you're accepting that the sanctity of life isn't irrevocably more important than happiness I'm happy with the result ;D
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32395346][i]NO IT ISN'T[/i]
Science is LITERALLY INCAPABLE of tackling moral debates. You literally can't participate in moral debates without some kind of moral philosophy. Science is absolutely devoid of morality. You cannot make a moral claim without philosophy. That's literally all there is to it, no buts.[/QUOTE]
I did explain in one of my previous posts that science does not need to attempt to provide a moral solution to a moral debate - science can simply bypass or get-around it. Returning to my stem-cell example, this case was settled without the use of philosophical deduction or reasoning.
[QUOTE=ffffff-;32395433]I did explain in one of my previous posts that science does not need to attempt to provide a moral solution to a moral debate - science can simply bypass or get-around it. Returning to my stem-cell example, this case was settled without the use of philosophical deduction or reasoning.[/QUOTE]
This isn't a question of how to get the fetus out of the mother without harming anyone, it's a question of whether or not it's okay to kill the fetus. Science can not answer this question because there is no objective answer.
Trying to rephrase what I've said a thousand times is hurting my brain. :(
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32394884]This is pretty much cloning the baby, aborting it and creating a copy of it in who'll grow in another woman's womb.[/QUOTE]
No, not at all, you remove the fetus and let it grow in another container.
I don't support this, but if a girl was raped and gets pregnant I guess it will be okay for an abortion?
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32395551]This isn't a question of how to get the fetus out of the mother without harming anyone, it's a question of whether or not it's okay to kill the fetus. Science can not answer this question because there is no objective answer.[/QUOTE]
Yes, sorry, I did go rather off-topic in outlining my point. It is true that science cannot answer the question of whether it is wrong or right. In this situation all that science can do is try to circumvent the debate or avoid it altogether.
why not just throw it away
[QUOTE=ffffff-;32395736]Yes, sorry, I did go rather off-topic in outlining my point. It is true that science cannot answer the question of whether it is wrong or right. In this situation all that science can do is try to circumvent the debate or avoid it altogether.[/QUOTE]
Why are you even posting in this thread when you don't want to discuss the issue?
Do not abort the baby. If you're not ready to take care of a child put the child up for adoption. I am pro choice. You have the choice to have sex or not to have sex. After that if you get pregnant you must carry through with the pregnancy. Abortion is murder.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
