for those against abortion

[run]

A FETUS IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL!!!!!!!!!

By individual I meant you.

 

[SillySapienne]

And yes, the fetus has just as much right to a proper life as you do.

<insert ad hominem attack>

 

[run]

<insert ad hominem attack>

I'm waiting.

 

[SillySapienne]

Honestly, there's no changing you people.

You're right, I had an abortion because I do not value life, and the idea of killing human beings is not only tasteful but fun.

I am a murderer. Look your doors.

 

[run]

Honestly, there's no changing you people.

You're right, I had an abortion because I do not value life, and the idea of killing human beings is not only tasteful but fun.

I am a murderer. Look your doors.

You can ridicule me all you want. If you want me to take you seriously, address what I said.

 

[Haphazard]

Nobody's answered my question yet, either.

 

[SillySapienne]

The point is, I *can't* take you seriously.

You think that a zygote, (which is a fertilized egg), has equal rights to life as an actual human being.

I think that is assbackwards.

Like I said, there is no arguing with you.

 

[run]

Like I said, there is no arguing with you.

You're not trying. You're just ridiculing.

 

[Risen]

Nobody's answered my question yet, either.

Nor have they answered mine -_-.

 

[Venom]

But I'm not supporting the "don't infringe on others' rights" type of legislation that you do. I believe in "legislate what's objectively right." I think that's where we differ. I don't know if you believe in "objectively right.".

And yes, the fetus has just as much right to a proper life as you do.

legislate what is objectively right?

you crack me up! Modern society is based on metaphysical assumptions of "slave morality". Ie we control people who lower the populace's "on average" happiness. Why is this? Its not because "slave morality" is "objectively right", its because an awful lot of people "agree to it". It doesnt make it "metaphysically" and "objectively" right.

Metaphysical ethics will for the 1,000,000,000,000th time in this thread:

only ever have PRESCRIPTIVE weight FOR YOU

Unless you are going to legislate the same metaphysical assumptions you are building off of, this debate has no "absolutely necessary" synthetic a priori, that EVERYONE is "objectively" prescribed to follow.

If you disagree, then I suggest you dig deeper into epistemology...WAY deeper...

 

[Totenkindly]

You think that a zygote, (which is a fertilized egg), has equal rights to life as an actual human being. I think that is assbackwards.

Uh no, its not: It depends on your premises, and can follow pretty rationally if you have the right premises, especially one like this:

... i don't see why the *potential* distinction matters. It's not potential life anymore once it hooks up with the egg. It's life.

That's actually a pretty cogent point, if you care to think about it a bit before conveniently sloughing it off. If you let the fertilized egg go and nothing else happens to derail it (problems with the mother, genetic malfunctions, a host of things that can result in a lot of miscarriages), it will be born and be a human baby and suddenly "has rights." And the same baby can be triggered prematurely (a few weeks early) and suddenly has rights although technically it's exactly the same baby it was inside the womb "without rights" if that is the only distinction here... and this is partly why people thus make the claim "person at conception."

(Now, for me personally, the question I've had to ask myself is whether or not that life is still equivalent in every way, shape, and form to a life that has already been born or has lived a number of years. However, that does get into even more subjective weightings. I think the whole assumption of a "soul" independent from the body has complicated matters -- since then people naturally assume the soul enters the body at conception, hence the zygote is fully human at that point -- whereas if the center of the person IS the body or fully integrated into the body and not this detached separate "soul" entity, then the soul "grows into being human" as it ages and matures and thus not all souls are equivalent... but anyway.)

 

[run]

legislate what is objectively right?

you crack me up! Modern society is based on metaphysical assumptions of "slave morality". Ie we control people who lower the populace's "on average" happiness. Why is this? Its not because "slave morality" is "objectively right", its because an awful lot of people "agree to it". It doesnt make it "metaphysically" and "objectively" right.

Metaphysical ethics will for the 1,000,000,000,000th time in this thread:

only ever have PRESCRIPTIVE weight FOR YOU

Unless you are going to legislate the same metaphysical assumptions you are building off of, this debate has no "absolutely necessary" synthetic a priori, that EVERYONE is "objectively" prescribed to follow.

If you disagree, then I suggest you dig deeper into epistemology...WAY deeper...

I don't really understand this and all the terminology.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't really understand this and all the terminology.

From Nietzche -- slave and master morality...

Master morality values things based on outcome (if the outcome is beneficial, the act is "good"; if the outcome is detrimental, the act is "bad".) Nietzches sees these people as being strong.

Slave morality is a revaluing of master morality, it values things based on intention rather than outcome. It is a reaction against master mortality, casting them as the oppressors and vilifying their strength, rather than a morality that exists within itself, and thus to Nietzche it is 'weak.' You see the values in Nietzche's thinking here -- he values those who make their own decisions autonomously and credits them with strength, while those who do not think for themselves but merely buy into the conventional sentiment of what choice should be made are 'weak' because they are really not engaging the issue fully. In his mind, these people are cynical of the strong, and instead of rising to the occasion and becoming strong would rather create a solidarity that allows them to remain weak and never really engage the problem at hand and make hard choices.

In this case, I assume that master morality is the morality that would be considered "objective," it is look at the specific outcomes of the actions chosen and then determining what is right based on that -- it's directly tied into the cause/effect stream. In this case, it would be a person who instead of imposing prior values upon the decision to abort would evaluate the outcome of each choice and then pick the one that resulted in the most preferred outcome, regardless of other people's opinions or any outside values/religious prescription.

Slave morality is detached from the cause/effect stream, it is just a reaction against master morality. In this case, i guess it is the person who refuses to examine their own situation and make the best decision for themselves and everyone else involved, who instead just appeals to the overall public sentiment in order to align itself with what is conventionally seen as "good."

 

[run]

Nobody's answered my question yet, either.

Nor have they answered mine -_-.

What were they?

 

[Haphazard]

What were they?

If a baby is stillborn, is it the mother's fault? Was it ever truly alive in the first place?

 

[Laurie]

Oh you are saying how come people are selective about if a baby is "alive" or not. No one would tell a woman who is crying about a miscarriage not to feel bad because it wasn't a baby(individual) anyway.

 

[Haphazard]

Oh you are saying how come people are selective about if a baby is "alive" or not. No one would tell a woman who is crying about a miscarriage not to feel bad because it wasn't a baby(individual) anyway.

I'm curious because a lot of support as to why "a zygote is a person" is because "once it's created it will always be born and become a baby" because... that's not true.

 

[Laurie]

Well obviously when someone dies naturally it's not anyone's fault. I think your point is actually for the other side of what you mean.

No one is saying something with life always lives it's full potential. If I kill a 10 year old is it ok because they might die at 13? This is a sticky question, either way, there is no easy question that will make it clear.

 

[Haphazard]

Well obviously when someone dies naturally it's not anyone's fault.

Yes it is. Diseases of the mother can affect and cause miscarriages.

 

[Amargith]

For those who asked for an analogy, I'll give it a go:

You find yourself in a burning building with another person inside. You don't know when or if the roof will come down on you, but the other person is hurt, and unable to walk out themselves. In fact, you're not even sure if they'd make it at all, if they're at all alive still. You'd have to not only support them but carry them out..You have the choice to take the risk of the burning building coming down on you and dying or being injured for life, and perhaps saving their life in the process...or you can walk out and save your neck.

I know what I would do. Do you? And can you understand why someone else would pick the other option?

Can we really blame the ones who decide to choose certainty of life and walk out that door? And...don't you think their conscience will already take care of any judgement you could possibly utter?


Can your family and friends really blame you for staying inside and risking your life, considering the amount of hurt you're possibly about to put them through?

Just my two cents...