Yep. If you want to run out of fingers (and toes), count how many times the subject jumped from human to a human to human being to person and back again.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yep. If you want to run out of fingers (and toes), count how many times the subject jumped from human to a human to human being to person and back again.This is all semantics. People’s beliefs around abortion aren’t based on labels or descriptors, and changing or correcting those descriptors isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
Want to explain how?
I don't believe I've made claims one way or the other.
"If" and "might" and relying on me to prove your case for you donesn't really inspire confidence in your claim.
I can agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons (or if said pregnancy resulted from some manner of sexual assault) may be morally suspect. But must everything that is morally questionable have to be be illegal?
I'd say you are painting that too much in black and white.No, not everything that's morally suspect should be illegal. And I'm not really interested in debating the legality of abortion here. I'm concerned with the moral permissibility of abortion and specifically the inconsistent moral values that people hold when they allow for abortion but also want to legally mandate vaccination.
I can agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons (or if said pregnancy resulted from some manner of sexual assault) may be morally suspect. But must everything that is morally questionable have to be be illegal?
I'd say you are painting that too much in black and white.
Something can be "morally permissible" and still also be "morally problematic". And it can be "morally impermissible", but still be "morally necessary".
That's basically the line of reasoning that led me the the position on abortion that I currently have.
I think abortion is wrong and should not happen. But I understand abortion is in individual cases necessary and thus needs to be permitted. And because of the circumstances involved, the only person who can make the ultimate decision on an abortion is the pregnant woman. This decision should be based on the best available, factual informations... but still, ultimately, it is hers and only hers to make.
So the best way to deal with this situation of colliding moral goals is to reduce the cirumstances in which women would decide that an abortion is necessary.
As yet, we do not have the means to do that in the case of an already existing pregnancy. There would have to be a lot more research into that field.
We do have a lot of very good working means to prevent pregnancies.
But in both cases, it is mostly the "pro life, abortion is murder, execute the murderers!" people who object to both the working means to prevent pregnancies as well as oppose research into this topic.
You will never be able to stop abortion. But if you want to prevent it as much as possible, there are much better ways than to rant about its morality.
Non-Christian thought is full of logical inconsistencies. Here's just another example. Non-Christian thought usually champions these two values:
- Absolute personal autonomy
- Scientism
But these values come into conflict in two of the most controversial medical ethical issues of our time: vaccines and abortion.
Those who support "reproductive rights" will wave the flag of absolute personal autonomy. "My body, my choice." "Keep your laws off my ovaries." Etc. The most persuasive argument for the moral permissibility of abortion is widely regarded to be Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument. In her argument, the personhood of the fetus is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the mother has a moral obligation to donate her body to the fetus for nine months. She argues that the mother has no such obligation, so abortion is morally permissible.
Arguing that the fetus is not a morally significant agent with rights has been shown to be a philosophical dead end.
And so this line has been abandoned in favor of Thomson's line of argumentation. Note the reliance on the value of absolute personal autonomy.
But the same people will not apply this logic to issues surrounding something like vaccination. Recently New York City has ordered mandatory vaccinations for some. Here the flag of scientism is waved.
"Vaccines are effective." "The science is with vaccines." "Non-vaxers are conspiracy theorists." Etc. If a non-vaxer were to wave the absolute personal autonomy flag here it would not be allowed to fly. "My body, my choice" would not be acceptable to the people who push vaccines. But these are usually the same people who wave this flag in favor of abortion rights.
You might say: But in the case of vaccines, it's not just your body that is at stake. By not getting vaccinated you are also endangering others.
Okay. I would argue that the same is true - in fact more true - in cases of abortion. It's not just the woman's body at stake, but also the fetus whose life she is ending when she gets an abortion.
So you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either embrace absolute personal autonomy or scientism, but you cannot have both because of the contradictions that ensue.
I do think that there are cases where abortion can be morally permissible. In the instance where a fetus threatens the life of the mother, for example.
No, not everything that's morally suspect should be illegal. And I'm not really interested in debating the legality of abortion here. I'm concerned with the moral permissibility of abortion and specifically the inconsistent moral values that people hold when they allow for abortion but also want to legally mandate vaccination.
They always have been "out."
Really? Is that an American thing? I've never heard of that opinion in the UK, from religious people or otherwise
Different countries, different laws. You also live under a totally different government. Even the cultures in our countires are different. Chances are American and British people have different attitudes about things like abortion laws.
"Morning after" = abortion here.I'm talking about views on the morning after pill, not abortion laws
"Morning after" = abortion here.
Well, if you believe that human life and personhood begins at fertilization, not allowing implantation is an abortion.LOL Not exactly. Forty percent of the time, Plan B works before a zygote settles on a side of the uterus.
Arguing that the fetus is not a morally significant agent with rights has been shown to be a philosophical dead end.
And so this line has been abandoned in favor of Thomson's line of argumentation.
Non-Christian thought is full of logical inconsistencies. Here's just another example. Non-Christian thought usually champions these two values:
- Absolute personal autonomy
- Scientism
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?