Abortion
- Thread starter Shredderbeam
- Start date
Ah so it's wrong because it's wrong. I was hoping for a real reply but hey, whatever...
I agree. This is why we are talking about killing fetuses not killing grown people.
xrooneygoalx
Forum Addict
Then there is no purpose reasoning with you as you clearly have no moral values. If you don't value life, then I don't know what's wrong with you. Go kill yourself or something...
Because a person is dead they don't care that they are indeed dead? A rediculous proposition as you obviously have no idea of telling so.
The unalienable rights arise from a good and honest society; unlike the sham that is communism in which you believe in. If communism doesn't support life, then I can't see why anyone would participate in it.
They would apply as a premise for discussion only if you believe in them. Clearly you don't, so there is no reason to debate with you.
You are right in saying that I do not hold moral values (at least I try not to, occasional one might slip through the cracks and remain there undetected for a bit). However, the conclusion you draw from this is utterly false.
I have rational reasons for opposing things like murder, such as:
- Firstly, it's a poor way to run society. If people were allowed to kill each other freely, society would simply cease to function.
- Secondly, I would feel bad for causing the family/friends of the victim grief, as well as effects from guilt, etc.
- Thirdly, I would almost certainly go to jail.
The same goes for pretty much anything like theft, rape, etc. You do not necessarily need 'moral values' to oppose similar things to those who have them. The reason I do not share mainstream views on morality is simply because I find them to do little more than obfuscate reasonable discourse; because I feel they confuse, rather than clarify.
Wait, what? When you die your brain shuts down and you can't feel bad for being dead. How is that ridiculous?
So at some point our society has reached the pinnacle of perfection? This is why you refuse to argue unalienable rights?
Or could it possibly be that our society still has a long way to go, and that exceptions to these rights might vastly improve society in the long run? I don't see why you exclude the possibility unless you think these rights were handed down from God or something...
You refuse to debate rather than demonstrating how I am wrong? Great. Why don't we all stop debating with people with whom we disagree. Making unalienable rights a premise in a debate is extremely arrogant and ignores a vast portion of philosophy. Why do you have this belief? Why should anyone respect it?
xrooneygoalx
Forum Addict
Above is the reason for my discontent to argue with you. I see no point in arguing when a person is guided by morals and one isn't. It's how you were brought up and that isn't likely to change solely through a debate. Hence the stupidity of arguing with a person without morals.
That is true. But in what way are you supposed to know if the person didn't want to die? You took the decision in your hands to kill them; giving them no chance to decide whether or not they wised to die (most likely not wanting to die). It's ridiculous to say "Oh, well since I killed him it doesn't matter if he wished to live because he can't care about it anymore".
I believe those are the rights necessary for a functioning society. Without life society is blatantly dysfunctional. Without liberty, what more are humans than animals under control of instincts (ruling master) and without happiness what is there to strive for in life?
As I responded above; without morals there is no basis upon which I can argue as you possess different ethics compared to those that I do.
I don't like overused abortion and I'm against it. The only thing I feel abortion should be used for is rape because
-the woman went through hell getting raped.
-Should the woman go through hell again having a child (its hell to them) to a father she doesn't know/nor the baby should be proud of when he/she grows up?
Why don't you like overused abortion?
@xrooneygoalx
No, metaethics is a large branch of philosophy with extensive literature. There is no reason besides laziness for your unwillingness to defend your stance on such a massively important issue. Like most people I grew up with the idea that there were certain natural rights, but a closer examination of philosophy allowed me to change my outlook. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to explain and re-evaluate your views. That is how progress and good policy-making occurs.
@Owen1993
As I said earlier in this thread: in most courts, murder is considered a worse crime than rape. Why, then, would you allow murder as a means of dealing with a lesser crime?
Oh and would you mind responding to my post earlier? Are you just going to conveniently ignore it?
http://www.sythe.org/showpost.php?p=3072796&postcount=284
No, metaethics is a large branch of philosophy with extensive literature. There is no reason besides laziness for your unwillingness to defend your stance on such a massively important issue. Like most people I grew up with the idea that there were certain natural rights, but a closer examination of philosophy allowed me to change my outlook. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to explain and re-evaluate your views. That is how progress and good policy-making occurs.
@Owen1993
As I said earlier in this thread: in most courts, murder is considered a worse crime than rape. Why, then, would you allow murder as a means of dealing with a lesser crime?
Oh and would you mind responding to my post earlier? Are you just going to conveniently ignore it?
http://www.sythe.org/showpost.php?p=3072796&postcount=284
8
809 kidd
Guest
it depends on certail circumstances. if the woman was raped or something then yea. she shouldnt have to live with a child that she never wanted. but then again if she and her partner got lazy and didnt use a condom, no.
On what moral grounds do you suppose that you can storm into an abortion clinic and forbid a woman from getting an abortion if it doesn't fall into what you find pleasing?
The baby is a living creature, within the womb or not. It has it's moral rights and there are many ways such as condoms and pills for pregnancy to not happen. Why should it be allowed to kill a baby because you made a mistake that can be 100% conquered.
It's not a human being until it's a separate life. That's when it receives all of its rights.
That's not a very good excuse, but if you make an effort to learn something, I will leave you alone.
I'm half and half. I mean, if the parents make a mistake, they shouldn't have to suffer for 18 years. But I also don't believe in killing babies. I am Pro-Adoption I guess, just give your child away and lock your file so they can never find you if you don't want them to.
There are no consequences when you get an abortion.
Education is probably the best way of reducing unwanted pregnancies. Except this sort of education is not readily available in many places even in developed countries. In developing countries, it it practically non-existent. Sorry, you can't expect these people to conjure knowledge out of thin air. Furthermore, forcing people to have unwanted babies forces them deeper into poverty and makes it even less likely that they will receive proper education.
Also, which consequences are you talking about? The consequences of the unwanted pregnancy? The consequences of getting an abortion? For whom? The only negative consequences for abortion that I am aware of are psychological for the women, and obviously financial for the government. Both can be largely ignored as the benefits vastly outweigh the costs.
If you are talking about the death of a fetus as a negative consequence, of which the parents need to be aware, then you still need to show why that is a bad thing without resorting to shit like natural rights, because that doesn't explain anything.