Black people don't have Neanderthal genes generally. So white racists can say that is reason they are different and can be enslaved. Identical to the pro-choice position — Gregory
That's because it's not your mind that is engaged. You've never addressed my question. What makes a woman's pregnancy anyone else's business but hers and her doctor's? You're long on rant, but absent any reasoning.You just don't have a big heart Tim plain and simple. You'll never change my mind about pro choice people being that way. You think abortion is a game. — Gregory
It desires to be alive in the same way as an insect desires to be alive. An insect struggles for its life. I don’t mean desire as in being conscious of the desire.I don't believe a fetus can indeed desire to be alive — Aleph Numbers
I don’t care about defining personhood, so the paradox of the heap is irrelevant. The fetus is a being (however you define it) that has the definite potential of becoming a rational self-conscious being (it will for sure if only it is allowed to live). If there is a decisive moment in its development, it is when it becomes self-conscious which happens long after the baby is born, so if “personhood” was decisive, it might be morally acceptable to kill three-month old infants.The need to define fetal personhood — Aleph Numbers
Fulfilled preference, not fulfilling, is happiness. When you get what you really want, you are happy. Note that it’s not about what you just think you want, because you may be wrong about that. You may think you want money more than anything, but you don’t really want it since even if you get it, you won’t be happy.fulfilling preferences is not the same as being happy — Aleph Numbers
You can’t do anything to something that doesn’t exist, including preventing its future, because there is no it. The it that is a fetus already exists and it’s the same being that later will become for example a three-year old kid.it must me wrong to use contraception because one is preventing a being with a valuable future from being born. — Aleph Numbers
But its a vegetable. It cannot feel; it is not sentient or conscious. If you think its wrong to kill fetuses that are non-persons then you must have a problem with killing vegetables, or all life. You must also abstain from eating meat. I don't see any tragedy in eating a head of broccoli. — ToothyMaw
"Parturition" seems a word - as I find it variously defined online - that no law could countenance without itself more rigorously defining it. What definition would you give it, supposing it were to ground a law? And do have have any complaints of note against Blackmun's reasoning in Roe v. Wade?I think a woman should have the unfettered right to do whatever the hell she wants with her "baby" up until parturition. — James Riley
↪Antinatalist The problem is that in this concept there is no worthy argumentation, but it is all based on moral judgments that cannot be verified in any way. another point is that a person does not become a person at some particular moment, such as after birth, the concept of "person" is a humanistic concept that can be considered from different points of view, but one thing you can know for sure is the zygote is the stage of human development and if we assume that a person you cannot kill, for example, in old age or at a young age, which means we admit that it is impossible to kill a person, and if we admit that it is possible to kill a zygote, then we admit that it is possible to kill sleeping people, people with down syndrome, etc. but it is important to note that this proposition works there we believe that people really cannot be killed, that is, we admit, again, a moral fact. — evtifron
What definition would you give it, supposing it were to ground a law? — tim wood
And do have have any complaints of note against Blackmun's reasoning in Roe v. Wade? — tim wood
unfettered right." But to what, when, how, and under what circumstances? — tim wood
Are there other rights she or others might have, fettered or unfettered? — tim wood
Saying that, I think killing people is wrong and extreme violation against person´s sovereignty and autonomy. That is a moral value I truly stand for. But I don´t believe that my that point of view, or any, can proof the way mathematical theorems can. But for me, my moral values are more meaningful than some mathematical theorems. (And while I earlier said about your unjustified leap about from zygote to killing sleeping person or someone with Down syndrome, I know that my point of view is just my point of view, like your is yours. Either one is not a scientific fact). But that´s another topic, anyway. — Antinatalist
she cannot be held to have murdered her fetus? — tim wood
And if she cannot, can anyone else be, whether acting at her direction or not? — tim wood
Why should you settle for a precis from me when the thing itself is so easily accessible? — tim wood
↪Antinatalist I completely agree with you in everything, on the example of sleeping people or people with down syndrome, I wanted to show some identity with the murder of the zygote in the sense that this murder is even more terrible in my opinion, as far as moral facts are concerned, I believe that they do not exist as something materially provable, but this does not exclude their significance and for me, moral factors are the criterion of truth and the highest virtue. — evtifron
Antinatalist abortion is often delayed by the fact that they do not kill a full-fledged person if we take this proposition, then it follows that we can not kill full-fledged people with various defects because I gave this example, if we take another proposition that we do not kill a person then we ask the question and who do we kill? one way or another, we kill one of the stages of human development, and if you follow this proposition, there is no difference if you kill an old man, a zygote, or a person with down syndrome, you will still kill a person. what is worse and what is better depends on the question posed, moral facts, etc. in any case, nothing is more important than human life — evtifron
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.