Why Abortion is Immoral

[Beechwell]

Human DNA is a characteristic of a human being. Can't separate the two.

It is a requirement for a human being, but it is not sufficient.

 

[Belk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Marquis_(philosopher)

That did not answer my question. By whom was he recognized as a "world class" philosopher?

 

[Tree of Life]

That did not answer my question. By whom was he recognized as a "world class" philosopher?

I'm not sure there's a medal or official honor for such a title. But he is respected in the philosophical community, he is a professional philosopher, and his paper is very famous and widely read and discussed in philosophical issues concerning abortion.

 

[Belk]

I'm not sure there's a medal or official honor for such a title. But he is respected in the philosophical community, he is a professional philosopher, and his paper is very famous and widely read and discussed in philosophical issues concerning abortion.

Then perhaps you should say "World renowned"? Presuming this fame and wide discussion is in fact happening around the world?

 

[Tree of Life]

Then perhaps you should say "World renowned"? Presuming this fame and wide discussion is in fact happening around the world?

His paper would be discussed in any serious applied ethics course that deals with abortion in virtually any University.

 

[Tree of Life]

Here's a debate between he and Singer (another world class philosopher) concerning Marquis' paper.

 

[redleghunter]

It is a requirement for a human being, but it is not sufficient.

Not sufficient? Says who? You? Now I would agree with you if such said life gave you an advanced directive. But they can't.

 

[SteveB28]

I think you misunderstand him. And why call him a fool? Show a little humility. He's a recognized, world class philosopher with a PhD. His point is that harming a possibility is not really harming anything at all. In cases of abortion, however, an actual fertilized egg is harmed.



/sigh

'A sigh is just a sigh'.

 

[SteveB28]

Human DNA is a characteristic of a human being. Can't separate the two.

And ova and sperm cells are living things which contain human DNA.

"Can't separate the two!"

 

[SteveB28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Marquis_(philosopher)

And Donald Trump is a "world class" politician!

So what? People of renown can take foolish positions.

 

[redleghunter]

And ova and sperm cells are living things which contain human DNA.

"Can't separate the two!"

You err in not knowing how the two join together to create a new life.

 

[Tree of Life]

And Donald Trump is a "world class" politician!

So what? People of renown can take foolish positions.

Peter Singer doesn't seem to think it's a foolish position, although he does not agree with it.

 

[SteveB28]

You err in not knowing how the two join together to create a new life.

I make no error at all.

You offer the proposition that there is something 'special' at conception, in that the embryo formed is alive and possesses unique human DNA.

So do ova and sperm cells. In that regard, there is no difference between the cells before fusing and after. Your contrast is arbitrary.

Look, I alluded to this earlier. Human reproduction is not a 'go-stop' interval. It is a cycle. A cycle which looks something like this:

Reproductive cells -> embryo -> foetus -> baby -> child -> sexually mature adult -> reproductive cells ->.........ad infinitum

Now, as communities, we have determined that the space between "baby" and "sexually mature adult" is a 'human being'. This entity is endowed with certain rights, largely centring around the right to exist. People like you, however, seek to place another arbitrary marker at "embryo" and to endow it with similar rights. And this is fine, in respecting your own point of view. But the arbitrary nature of the placement of your marker carries no particular compulsion for others to agree with your view. As I have said repeatedly, if you view this whole thing as a cyclical process, there is no place in that cycle whereby the destruction of any element will not halt the cycle! 'Killing' sperm cells and ova breaks the cycle. Sterilising a sexually mature adult breaks the cycle. And yes, destroying an embryo breaks the cycle.

But, if you are going to argue from a secular viewpoint, as the initiator of this discussion attempts to do, there is no difference between any of those 'cycle breakers' mentioned above.

 

[Job8]

Do women have any rights? Are you a woman?

Women have the right to either abstain or take the necessary precautions to prevent conception. They do NOT have the right to kill another human being.

This whole business of "women's rights" is phony. Once there is a living fetus, two human beings have equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This whole business of denying the truth about the personhood of a fetus is also totally phony. It is just like the Nazi philosophy which denied personhood to Jews and other "undesirables" and wiped them off the face of the earth. That was mass murder, and this is individual murder.

 

[SteveB28]

Peter Singer doesn't seem to think it's a foolish position, although he does not agree with it.

Mr Singer neither rules my life nor my thought processes. An idea stands and falls on its own merits, not because of the lips that utter it. Mr Marquis' idea falls.

 

[SteveB28]

Women have the right to either abstain or take the necessary precautions to prevent conception. They do NOT have the right to kill another human being.

This whole business of "women's rights" is phony. Once there is a living fetus, two human beings have equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This whole business of denying the truth about the personhood of a fetus is also totally phony. It is just like the Nazi philosophy which denied personhood to Jews and other "undesirables" and wiped them off the face of the earth. That was mass murder, and this is individual murder.

And, in terminating a pregnancy, women do not "kill another human being". That you have an opinion in that direction does not make it universally accepted.

 

[Tree of Life]

Mr Singer neither rules my life nor my thought processes. An idea stands and falls on its own merits, not because of the lips that utter it. Mr Marquis' idea falls.

Dr. Marquis.

 

[Job8]

And, in terminating a pregnancy, women do not "kill another human being". That you have an opinion in that direction does not make it universally accepted.

Steve,
While it may not be universally accepted, we should focus on the truth, not the lies people tell each other, or governments tell the general public, or supreme court justices tell the world, or doctors tell their patients. Had the truth been acknowledged from the very beginning, abortion would be classified as murder, and the death penalty would be applicable for first degree murder.

 

[SteveB28]

Steve,
While it may not be universally accepted, we should focus on the truth, not the lies people tell each other, or governments tell the general public, or supreme court justices tell the world, or doctors tell their patients. Had the truth been acknowledged from the very beginning, abortion would be classified as murder, and the death penalty would be applicable for first degree murder.

And, of course, you and the people who hold your minority view are the sole arbiters of the "truth", correct?

 

[Beechwell]

Not sufficient? Says who? You? Now I would agree with you if such said life gave you an advanced directive. But they can't.

When you think of a 'human being ', do you actually envision a certain kind of DNA configuration?