Ethical Subjectivism and the Pro-Choice Movement

CorporateWhore

blackredyellow wrote:

There are plenty of things that I view as immoral, but the libertarian side of me doesn't want the government to legislate against. There are also various degrees of morality in my opinion too.

If you don't think government has the responsibility to protect you from being senselessly murdered, then what responsibility does it have?

In the same way, the government has the responsibility to protect innocent prenatal life.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

CorporateWhore wrote:

People didn't have as many abortions when it was illegal. I daresay people would jackoff just as much if not more if that was illegal.

It stops nothing. It will always return and continue as before. You can't ever own people like slaves and tell them what to do with their personal lives. Ever.

Perhaps for a little tiny while, but it will ALWAYS fail and the entire effort will be a huge waste of time and effort, and money.

It's the same idiotic broken record over and over again.

Hopelessly stuck on stupid some people are.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

There will always be a consistent battle for what is right and wrong. Pro-choice people can claim that abortion is right and pro-life people can claim that abortion is wrong. Eventually society will come to an agreement on it.

I do not allow room for the idea that abortion is okay and pro-choice people should not allow room for the idea that abortion is wrong. But, they shouldn't also claim that I can be opposed to abortion but still believe abortion should be legal. That's an irrational moral judgment.

no it isn't. im opposed to drinking. but i still think you should be allowed to do it if you want. how is that irrational?

though i do agree it should be a social issue, not a constitutional one. id prefer it to be decided on a state by state or county by county basis.

blackredyellow

CorporateWhore wrote:

If you don't think government has the responsibility to protect you from being senselessly murdered, then what responsibility does it have?

In the same way, the government has the responsibility to protect innocent prenatal life.

I understand your point and this is why I usually try to stay away from abortion debates altogether. The two sides will never reach an agreement because they view the issue from two entirely different perspectives.

Yes, the government should protect innocent life and innocent prenatal life, but it all goes back to the question of when life begins.

My wife is 4 months pregnant... we had and ultrasound at 5 weeks and all it was was a yolk sac. We were ecstatic that we were pregnant and that the embryo was implanted in the right place (we had an issue in the past). That being said, I still didn't consider that yolk sac as "life". It represented the possibility of life to me, and the future child that we were hoping for, but at that stage in her pregnancy, I didn't think it's life.

Now at 4 months when a fetus has hands and feet and developing systems in his/her body, yes, I consider it life, but not back at 5 weeks.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

If you don't think government has the responsibility to protect you from being senselessly murdered, then what responsibility does it have?

In the same way, the government has the responsibility to protect innocent prenatal life.

again, this assume the prenatal fetus is alive.

CorporateWhore

soulsinging wrote:

no it isn't. im opposed to drinking. but i still think you should be allowed to do it if you want. how is that irrational?

though i do agree it should be a social issue, not a constitutional one. id prefer it to be decided on a state by state or county by county basis.

Drinking isn't as serious of a moral dilemma as abortion. It doesn't injure anyone else when done responsibly. Abortion injures the fetus irreparably. I'm all for personal privacy and the government should have no say as to what you do to your body. But, abortion introduces a different scenario: the woman certainly does something to a different human being with different DNA.

The vast majority of issues should be decided state by state.

CorporateWhore

soulsinging wrote:

again, this assume the prenatal fetus is alive.

It's not dead. Living things are usually judged living when their cells continue to divide. Fetuses are living by that standard. They are also human beings with human DNA, albeit lesser developed.

You wouldn't discriminate against lesser developed countries even though they don't have the same power as America. Just because they cannot defend themselves as well as America can doesn't mean you have the right to destroy them.

In the same way, you have no right to kill an unborn child simply because it is less developed.

Rhinocerous Surprise

I think an important issue is that legislating against abortion doesn't stop abortion, because women will always have the option of getting a backstreet abortion if they are so set on getting one. And if the abortion is an inevitability, I'd like to maximise the chances of the mother coming out healthy, at least.

Besides, pro-choice isn't necessarily pro-death. I'd consider myself pro-choice, but I'd always prefer that the woman go through with the pregnancy, and put the child up for adoption if she must. That said, I do believe there are circumstances where an abortion could be necessary (eg. if childbirth is likely to kill the mother), and a blanket ban helps no one.

even flow?

I wonder if Cheney wishes that his wife had an abortion after being humiliated having a dyke for a daughter? Oh you religious types seem to get what you wish for.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

It's not dead. Living things are usually judged living when their cells continue to divide. Fetuses are living by that standard. They are also human beings with human DNA, albeit lesser developed.

You wouldn't discriminate against lesser developed countries even though they don't have the same power as America. Just because they cannot defend themselves as well as America can doesn't mean you have the right to destroy them.

In the same way, you have no right to kill an unborn child simply because it is less developed.

but we do allow hunting animals to extinction. we also allow harvesting plants, which also grow via cell division. just because it is not dead does not mean it a living, separate human entity. that's a deep philosophical question.

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

and a blanket ban helps no one.

...except the unborn child.

But no one cares about him or her.

CorporateWhore

soulsinging wrote:

just because it is not dead does not mean it a living, separate human entity. that's a deep philosophical question.

How do you distinguish a separate human entity?

An unborn child is a separate human entity until the mother decides to abort it. Then she views it as a "zygote." If a woman wants the child, then she views it as "her baby."

It's funny how a pregnant woman's perceptions can so easily change the child's state of nature.

blackredyellow

CorporateWhore wrote:

...except the unborn child.

But no one cares about him or her.

where do you stand on frozen fertilized embryos that are used for invitro? Should we pass laws the prevent them from being thrown away when not needed and force people to use them?

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

...except the unborn child.

But no one cares about him or her.

But that's because you consider the unborn child human life from the moment of conception. And no one's forcing you to get an abortion. But there are those who don't consider the unborn child to be ahuman life until some way into the pregnancy, and you would force them not to get an abortion. For someone who protects your own individual rights so much, you sure are quick to get involved in others' individual rights.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

How do you distinguish a separate human entity?

An unborn child is a separate human entity until the mother decides to abort it. Then she views it as a "zygote." If a woman wants the child, then she views it as "her baby."

It's funny how a pregnant woman's perceptions can so easily change the child's state of nature.

But that's it: it is just perceptions. Not facts. If the woman is going to keep the child, of course she views it as her baby, because, save for miscarriage, the zygote will eventually be her baby. If she decides to abort it, it won't reach that stage.

CorporateWhore

blackredyellow wrote:

where do you stand on frozen fertilized embryos that are used for invitro? Should we pass laws the prevent them from being thrown away when not needed and force people to use them?

Don't throw them away but don't force people to use them, obviously.

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

But that's it: it is just perceptions. Not facts. If the woman is going to keep the child, of course she views it as her baby, because, save for miscarriage, the zygote will eventually be her baby. If she decides to abort it, it won't reach that stage.

I was pointing out the inconsistency of that moral judgment.

The woman's perceptions do not change what the child is. Her perceptions can change, but the baby remains the same. I conclude that the baby is a human being worthy of life. You don't, clearly.

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

But that's because you consider the unborn child human life from the moment of conception. And no one's forcing you to get an abortion. But there are those who don't consider the unborn child to be ahuman life until some way into the pregnancy, and you would force them not to get an abortion. For someone who protects your own individual rights so much, you sure are quick to get involved in others' individual rights.

I support individual rights very much, including the individual rights of the unborn. I was unborn once and had my mother not respected my rights, I wouldn't be here. An aborted fetus could have grown up just like me but it was cut short because society does not respect its rights.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

I was pointing out the inconsistency of that moral judgment.

The woman's perceptions do not change what the child is. Her perceptions can change, but the baby remains the same. I conclude that the baby is a human being worthy of life. You don't, clearly.

Babies are human beings worthy of life. Of course they are. We don't disagree on that. We disagree on when the zygote should be considered a human being.

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Babies are human beings worthy of life. Of course they are. We don't disagree on that. We disagree on when the zygote should be considered a human being.

What else could the zygote be? An ape?

It's a human.