Why do women terminate pregnancies? They do so because having a child is in some way an inconvenience for them. — Thorongil
Make child benefit equal to the living wage first, and then start to talk about the sanctity of life. — unenlightened
I wasn't talking about child care. Simply because I oppose abortion doesn't mean... — Thorongil
So I ask, how can so many people look at the question of abortion without looking at the question of murder? — David
Collective intuition (spanning many cultures over an extensive period of time*) is that they aren't independent entities and aren't conscious. — Mongrel
Of course there are societally pragmatic definitions for morals as those things which can bring about positive effects upon the whole of society. For example, murder is deigned inappropriate because it is harmful to society as a whole. — David
...there is a sizable percentage of people that believe it qualifies them for being killable. — David
I even see a kind of paradox that many people who are "pro-life" don't see any problem with being virulently "pro-gun". — swstephe
then we should ban anything that might unnaturally end human life, like guns, wars or pollution — swstephe
like free health care or wealth redistribution to end poverty — swstephe
"If men got pregnant, abortion on demand would be a sacrament." Gloria Steinem. — Bitter Crank
I wish to interject here that I am pro-life, but not virulently pro-gun, if only to confirm that such individuals do exist, despite your having implied that they might. I would not be much distraught if all guns were banned tomorrow. On the other hand, I am persuaded as to their effectiveness as a means of self-defense in certain limited circumstances, so long as one is threatened to the extent that a gun is the most prudent means of said defense. I also believe that there are just wars, on account of the same principle of self-defense. But I am not in favor of guns per se or of hunting and the culture surrounding the ownership of guns. — Thorongil
These things are vague enough to be open to dispute. It was a clever attempt at inserting your political opinions on these matters by assuming them, though. — Thorongil
If abortion were banned again, then the fetus dies anyway because the mother can't afford healthcare, then why aren't the people who refused to support healthcare collectively guilty of the same murder? I think the same would go for pro-choice. If a woman has a right to defend her body from an unwanted pregnancy, then they ought to be more sympathetic to guns and wars on the same basis. — swstephe
Maybe it would be useful to look at the (in)famous "trolley problem"...But most people presented with this description would still refuse to throw the switch, even when it causes more harm. — swstephe
I don't have immense background in this hypothetical. You said that most people wouldn't flip the switch (I assume because then they'd feel responsible for killing one person, rather than creditable for saving a bunch). Does the situation suggest that flipping the switch is morally correct, and merely very difficult and emotionally tolling, or that, by general consensus, one should not use the switch? My intuition seems to reach for the prior, although I don't have any logical arrivals at it. — David
Suppose it was possible to transplant the fetus such that the woman could remove it from their body — m-theory
Because a fetus is not yet conscious it is not a person and there are no rights being violated by the termination of that pregnancy. — m-theory
If you have not adopted a child I will insist that you are not pro-life in any practical sense of what that term means. — m-theory
I pointed out why it was important to speculate.But it's not, so it's meaningless to speculate.
I am assuming rights do not apply because nobody exists to benefit from them.No. You are simply assuming that rights only apply to persons and not living things more generally. I, for example, would wish to extend rights to non-human animals, but not because they're persons.
It is meaningless to say you are "pro-life" if you have not actively demonstrated that value in the context of this issue.This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.
To determine if the person is pro-life in a practical sense. — m-theory
It is meaningless to say you are "pro-life" if you have not actively demonstrated that value in the context of this issue. — m-theory
I am assuming rights do not apply because nobody exists to benefit from them. — m-theory
A fetus is not an independent living thing...the mother is. — m-theory
The question is whether or not a women ought to be able to decide for herself whom she will procreate with.
I believe that decision is for the individual and not the state. — m-theory
Actually it probably is technologically possible...but there is no demand for it...because people are not pro-life...they are pro-tell others how to live.What you say is not practically possible, so no conclusion as to the practicability of pro-lifers can be averred based thereon.
It is not meaningful in any practical sense because you refuse any responsibility for this value.No, it's quite meaningful to say I am pro-life if I am in fact pro-life, which I am. That has nothing to do with adoption.
At least here you admit that you want to force your beliefs on someone else rather than assume responsibility for those beliefs yourself.Good for you. I don't.
Actually it probably is technological possible — m-theory
It is not meaningful in any practical sense because you refuse any responsibility for this value.
What you really mean is believe someone else ought to be forced to be pro-life. — m-theory
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.