Risen
Permabanned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,185
- MBTI Type
- ISTP
- Enneagram
- 9w8
And Risen, I frankly don't even understand what your post is trying to say.
Exactly.
And Risen, I frankly don't even understand what your post is trying to say.
GOOD ReasonKilling human life is not wrong if it's done for a reason. For example, self defense.
But it doesn't follow that we must agree on everything in order to coexist.You fail to understand that any society cannot exist unless there's a common practical belief in certain truths.
Killing human life is not wrong if it's done for a reason. For example, self defense.
But it doesn't follow that we must agree on everything in order to coexist.
Well we are divided as a society already when it comes to certain beliefs.
The abortion issue will NEVER be objectively and unshakeably true, because it's based on opinion.
Subjectivism is not rational. Reason actually determines that there is a common truth to all men, even if it may apply differently in specific circumstances.As I've been saying, the most rational decision is for people to be able to have their opinions and live freely.
Read again my references to Tocqueville's remarks on this issue.This is why we have a freedom of religion and political belief.
In other words, bracket controversial issues for the sake of political and social cooperation. However, there are several problems with this approach, which in the end results in attempts to avoid the issue rather than resolving it - which would require a substantial view about conceptions of the human person in regards to moral, religious, and socio-political contexts.This is also why we should have a freedom to believe whether abortion is "right" or not, and for the people who think it's "right" to be able to get them and for those who think it's not "right" to be able to choose to not get one. Simple as that.
Agreed... but who needs defending here? Why is the fetus/embryo/big-clump-o-human-cells being destroyed because of a decision that the mother made? You could say, a child exists because their mother gave birth to them, but I think we can all agree that would not give the mother the right to kill the child if it was an inconvenience.
Even our judicial system makes distinctions in accountability, adults are tried differently than juveniles and children because they do not know better. Well, who is the one who ought to know better here? Which one is suffering a loss at the mistake of someone else, and which is shirking responsibility for their choices?
First, why is it necessary that all human life has the same value and the same rights? Couldn't human beings in one stage be accorded different rights than those in another? Does a person have a right to have a limb amputated, or is that wrong because the limb contains "human life" in the form of cells?
First, why is it necessary that all human life has the same value and the same rights? Couldn't human beings in one stage be accorded different rights than those in another? Does a person have a right to have a limb amputated, or is that wrong because the limb contains "human life" in the form of cells?
Second, why is the death seen as a "loss"? A loss of what, they haven't lived a life or had any meaningful experiences yet.
Lastly, why is it a matter of refusing accountability? It seems to me that getting an abortion might be some people's way of taking accountability, saying that they feel it's the best decision for everyone involved. Sex is an action that has consequences, and abotion is also an action with consequences.
Who are you to say that a person is allowed to take one action and accept that set of consequences, but to choose the other action and accept the consequences? Why should a person not be allowed to take an action that modifies the consequences of a previous action?
For once we agree. As I cited Aristotle: "And life: since, even if no other good were the result of life, it is desirable in itself."However, I ultimately believe the idea that you can abort should not fall on justification based on consequence of where this child might end up.
A fetus not developing into a human can be the result of god's will to miscarriages, or human will deciding that the time is not right.
This...is something my mother doesn't take lightly. She did it and see's what it does.
However, I ultimately believe the idea that you can abort should not fall on justification based on consequence of where this child might end up...
Unfortunately it appears that you apply the label "human life" to multicellular organisms within a human. Perhaps you should shed a tear the next time a cancerous growth is surgically removed from a human.
Another commonly overlooked aspect to this... have never heard of a mother who was glad to have an abortion. Have heard plenty of stories of those who deeply regret it, or those who considered it and were glad they didn't in the end.
Not to focus on their mistakes, but let's at least learn from them ya know?
Well it's required if wish to have a state based upon concepts of justice - which includes the defense of life on an objective basis. Otherwise you end up with regimes like the Nuremberg Laws, where accidental(subjective) elements become the main factor in determining your life's value.
Just as well, a fetus is not apart of a woman. Its inside the woman. In most cases, the fetus isn't even the same sex as the mother and can have a completely different blood type than the mother. In that case, it is NOT the mother. So you cannot say the woman has a right over her body in this case, because the baby is NOT her body. Its a completely different being.
Okay, so what you're saying is that you have trouble conceiving of an objective defintion of human life that protects everyone which wouldn't also include fetuses?
Well go by John Macmurrary's simple definition: "We are not organisms, but persons."Hmm... I don't know. On one hand, I can see value in that for all the living people.
On the other, it really does feel like a stretch to call something an independent "life" if it's still dependent on the host to survive. I suppose it depends on how you define life.
The wholeness of human personhood cannot be reduced to biological categories, and although an essential dimension it's still a subordinate one in regards to personhood.I personally would prefer to define human life as something that could be sustained without directly drawing on the biological/organic resources of another human being. Essentially, as long as the baby is a dependent process within the parent's body, it's more akin to a parasite, tumor, or defective organ within the body of the parent than it is to independent human life.
I personally would prefer to define human life as something that could be sustained without directly drawing on the biological/organic resources of another human being.