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.
Because that's rational thinking.My hope is that the secularists will begin to understand that when we allow our emotions to be the only driver of our decisions, bad things happen. Having a balance of emotion and rational thinking is key to a productive healthy life. Which brings me back to the importance of promoting good choices before conception and forget the idea of pro choice after conception because it only justifies the immoral actions of abortion.
Pro good choices before conception is both pro life and pro choice, how can anyone argue against it?
That's great, but that isn't what we were talking about.My point about the other thing was that someone who honestly fears the authority of God would not have an abortion, but would rather either love the child or at least put them up for adoption.
Disruption of their express sentience, and cause of upset to friends family, and to a lesser extent, economic investment in the person.How does killing a NAHB harm them? Let's think especially in the case of a very sudden killing that is painless to the victim and catches them totally unawares. How are they harmed in that instance?
Disruption of their express sentience, and cause of upset to friends family, and to a lesser extent, economic investment in the person.
However, most people you ask will say that "sudden and painless" is how they want to die, which should tell you something.
Nope. I can't agree, sorry. You have to have a concept of future experience before you can be meaningfully deprived of if. Foetuses don't. So I just don't see how they're the same.You've mentioned how their killing harms others - upsetting to survivors, upsetting economically. But killing is wrong primarily because it harms the person killed. Conceivably you could kill a person and harm no one else in the process - perhaps they have no family to miss them. But it would still be wrong because killing harms the person killed. You've touched on why a little bit. Killing disrupts something - their experiences. Put more plainly, killing them deprives them of future experiences they would have otherwise had. This is the great harm done in killing. This is the most obvious harm done. This is most obviously why we ourselves do not want to be killed. And this is primarily why killing is wrong.
Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:
First premises:
This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:
- One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
- Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
- Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).
It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:
- Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
- Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
- Therefore abortion is immoral.
"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."
This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.
Are you now the arbiter of silliness in for these forums?Let me first answer these questions before I critique this kind of response.
These are two other kinds of objections that are mounted against Marquis' argument and they're both very silly, I think.
- Yes, of course women have all kinds of rights.
- No I am not a woman.
You have simply presumed that the Marquis' argument takes precedent over the women's rights over her own body.They go like this:
"Women have rights over their own body. They are not morally obligated to support a fetus. The fetus may have a right to life, but it does not trump the right the woman has over her body."
This argument was made popular by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson under her "famous violinist" scenario. It fails for two reasons:
It does not address Marquis' argument at all. So his argument still stands.
Sure we think it is wrong. Yet some mothers, for their own reasons, are not capable of this.It fails to explain why we believe that a mother is ethically obliged to care for a newborn child. A newborn is just as dependent on the mother's body as a fetus is. Yet we think that it's wrong for a mother to neglect a child that has already been born.
That is not my position. I can only speak from experience. My wife wanted to become pregnant, even going in for surgery to check her tubes and such to see if there were problems (none found). I simply cannot share this experience."If you're not a woman then you're not allowed to challenge the ethics of abortion."
I'm not sure that this even needs a response. It's like saying "if you're not a father then you're not allowed to challenge my decision to be a dead-beat dad." After all, just because a guy gets a woman pregnant doesn't mean he's ethically obliged to care for that child, right? Oh wait...
Or: "if you're not a politician then you're not allowed to challenge governmental corruption." It just doesn't follow.
Nope. I can't agree, sorry. You have to have a concept of future experience before you can be meaningfully deprived of if. Foetuses don't. So I just don't see how they're the same.
Capital punishment is immoral because it deprives VHF.
Self defense is immoral because it deprives VHF.
Special pleading is special.
Not officially.Are you now the arbiter of silliness in for these forums?
You have simply presumed that the Marquis' argument takes precedent over the women's rights over her own body.
I would ask you, does your level of concern for the child's health change at birth?
No it's not. Because it isn't aware of what it's being deprived of. Crux point.You do agree that this harm is done to NAHB?
Fetuses, in most cases, have VHF just like adults do - though they may not be aware of this. When a fetus is killed it is deprived of the same thing that a NAHB is deprived of.
That's where the qualifier "normal" comes in. A normal adult human being is one who is not liable to capital punishment or one who is not liable to violence due to self defense. There could be reasons to kill an adult human being, but a killing a NAHB is wrong. Most agree. I think you do too.
Don't know what you mean.
No it's not. Because it isn't aware of what it's being deprived of. Crux point.
This just gets worse and worse.
Obviously not. Special pleading is where you try to except your argument from objections for non logical reasons. For example claiming your argument against killing people only applies to people who do not deserve to be killed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
A little overwrought, isn't it?I don't see how this is relevant at all.
Let's say that you have a distant relative who dies and his directives are to leave you with $20,000,000. This fortune belongs to your family and was acquired by your family over several generations. Your relative decided that it should go to you because you're the most competent person to handle it. Furthermore you greatly need this wealth. You have a child who has a life threatening condition and you need a large some of money to pay for the procedures needed.
Then lets say you know nothing about this relative or this inheritance. Your relative's lawyer notices this and figures out a way to steal this money from you without your, or anyone's knowledge of it. You never knew it existed. You never knew it was rightfully yours. Later on your child dies because you couldn't pay for medical procedures.
Would you say that you were harmed in this situation?
That's great, but that isn't what we were talking about.
You've gone of on a weird tangent.If my memory serves me, we were talking about the emotional state of a woman who's faced with the possibility of having an abortion to better(or unintentionally worsen) her own quality of life. I'm just making the point that a woman who fears the authority of God would not consider killing the unborn for fear of God's righteous judgment.
A woman who does not fear God's authority would consider killing an unborn child as a good thing because she perceives it as bettering her own quality of life, however, many woman say that having an abortion causes unforeseen grief and regret. This grief and regret they experience is quite possibly God's judgment against them. Should they ask for forgiveness from God, they will receive it, but this doesn't mean they can continue having abortions.
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?