Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
There is one instance in which you are allowed to do something immoral: if all the other alternatives are also immoral.
So morality changes according to circumstances?
No, I never said that. Abortion is always immoral, even in the case that the woman was coerced to have sex. However, if she was coerced, there are two immoral choices: either we allow the woman to abort, which is immoral, or we prohibit her from aborting, which is also immoral (because she never consented to have sex and get pregnant).
So, no, morality does not change according to circumstances. It is always immoral to abort a child, and it is always immoral to force someone to go through unwanted suffering which was not consented. In most abortions, since the woman has already consented to have sex and, consequently, possibly get pregnant, the second parameter does not apply and the best choice is clear. However, if the woman has been raped, it is still immoral to do both things.
In other words, as I have said earlier, every foetus has the right to live and every woman has the right to choose whether to get pregnant. If the woman has already used her right, that right is not given back to her; but, if she has not (as it happens in a situation of rape), she still has the right to choose, and it is immoral to take it away from her.
Really?
This may be a foothold. You are harming a fetus or a zygote. You're harming it very greatly - by depriving it of future, human experiences. But you may not be harming a person. That may matter. I don't know.
Right. I'm still not sure how that is relevant to this argument.
A future.
Should we be free to take the life of a healthy, innocent adult since, after all, they might be killed in a car accident tomorrow anyway?Yes really. Not all human experiences are valuable. Take any instance of suffering for example. Those are not valuable to me at all. That term has to be taken out of your equation.
Since a first trimester fetus isn't a person, the use of the word "deprive" in the way you're using it is incorrect. You can't deprive an aspect of personhood to something that isn't a person. So there's no demonstrable harm.
It's relevant because, as I've said before, we shouldn't base our ethics on potentialities or "what if's". Should you shoot someone walking down the same street as you because they have the potential to mug you? What if you knew for a fact that they've mugged other people in the past?
Similarly, should you not abort a fetus because it has the potential to become a person?
Both of those situations are in the same category.
Can you guarantee that all first trimester fetuses will be delivered at nine months? If not, then you're just speculating that any fetus will fully develop.
No. Morality is subjective, and abortion is moral according to my system of morality. I believe that humans should not be forced to give of their bodies to sustain the lives of others. So, for example, I support taxation, but not forced blood donation.Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?
Should we be free to take the life of a healthy, innocent adult since, after all, they might be killed in a car accident tomorrow anyway?
You're last point was simply that, not knowing whether the fetus might have a future in itself should give reason to deny it the right to continued life.Nope. Which is another illustration of why the potential personhood of a fetus is immaterial to the discussion.
You're last point was simply that, not knowing whether the fetus might have a future in itself should give reason to deny it the right to continued life.
Well, the reason I asked is this is because you made this statement...
"There is one instance in which you are allowed to do something immoral: if all the other alternatives are also immoral."
So would the "least immoral" choice become the moral choice by default?
Since a first trimester fetus isn't a person, the use of the word "deprive" in the way you're using it is incorrect. You can't deprive an aspect of personhood to something that isn't a person. So there's no demonstrable harm.
Similarly, should you not abort a fetus because it has the potential to become a person?
Can you guarantee that all first trimester fetuses will be delivered at nine months? If not, then you're just speculating that any fetus will fully develop.
No. Morality is subjective, and abortion is moral according to my system of morality. I believe that humans should not be forced to give of their bodies to sustain the lives of others. So, for example, I support taxation, but not forced blood donation.
No, sorry. Those were two separate points you made. One was that a first trimester fetus was not a person. The other was that the mere possibility of it's having no future made it's existence of less worth.No, the fact that the fetus isn't assured a future (and therefore personhood) eliminates that factor from consideration. The fact that a first trimester fetus isn't a person is what justifies abortion.
Your example actually bolsters my position, not yours.
Yes. I have no objection to that conclusion.Oh ok. Well in that case abortion is immoral according to my system of morality.
Subjectively, yes. Objectively, it's inconclusive.I guess it's wrong for me to have an abortion but it's right for you.
So do you think it might be reasonable to, say, reverse the laws against homicide? If morality is only relative, then there's nothing intrinsically wrong with genocide or homicide, let alone any reason for moral outrage against such behavior?No. Morality is subjective, and abortion is moral according to my system of morality. I believe that humans should not be forced to give of their bodies to sustain the lives of others. So, for example, I support taxation, but not forced blood donation.
Subjectively, yes. Objectively, no.
No. I believe that limitations on killing are a cornerstone of any functional social contract. Therefore, they are an important part of my moral system.So do you think it might be reasonable to, say, reverse the laws against homicide?
Oh, I see. You're equating the lack of belief in objective morality with a desire for anarchy. Allow me to clarify: I fully believe that subjective moral beliefs are more than enough justification to construct laws and limit the behavior of others. Just because I don't agree with theories of some objective source of morality (such as an all-powerful deity) doesn't mean that I want human society to self-destruct. That would go against my evolutionary programming. There doesn't have to be anything objectively wrong with an action in order for it to have consequences that are worth avoiding.If morality is only relative, then there's nothing intrinsically wrong with genocide or homicide, let alone any reason for moral outrage against such behavior?
Yes, the minimizing of the value of human life and the taking of human life is always self-destructive, unless to protect against harm to innocent life from those with a sinister intent. So, when does a a human being become human, worthy of the full protection of the law?No. I believe that limitations on killing are a cornerstone of any functional social contract. Therefore, they are an important part of my moral system.
Oh, I see. You're equating the lack of belief in objective morality with a desire for anarchy. Allow me to clarify: I fully believe that subjective moral beliefs are more than enough justification to construct laws and limit the behavior of others. Just because I don't agree with theories of some objective source of morality (such as an all-powerful deity) doesn't mean that I want human society to self-destruct. That would go against my evolutionary programming. There doesn't have to be anything objectively wrong with an action in order for it to have consequences that are worth avoiding.
Yes. What I meant was that it's not definitively right or wrong, objectively speaking. I realized that my succinct wording didn't make that clear, so I changed it to "inconclusive."Didn't you say that morality is purely subjective?
"Inconclusive" is fairly different. This implies that there is a correct answer, objectively speaking, we just do not yet know it. If morality is purely subjective then the answer isn't inconclusive at all. The answer is clear - abortion is not wrong.Yes. What I meant was that it's not definitively right or wrong, objectively speaking. I realized that my succinct wording didn't make that clear, so I changed it to "inconclusive."
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?