+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 79

Thread: The abortion is morally acceptable

  1. Default The abortion is morally acceptable

    Rules: no logical fallacies, no legal arguments, unless it pertains to ethical/moral reasoning.


    My position: abortion is morally acceptable.

    The principle of consideration of interests, which my position on abortion arises from, comes from the simple fact that as conscious beings with a certain brain capacity (that capacity being; we are conscious, self aware and are capable of thinking so as to hold interests) we hold and seek to fulfill certain interests.
    We have no reason to consider our own interests anymore important than that of another simply because it is our own. Consequently we can say all interests should be considered, and considered equally. The implications of this principle in the abortion debate are rather straight forward. The interests involved, in the immediate circumstance are the mother and the fetus. The fact is however the fetus has no interests - let alone an interest in its existence. If it had preexisting interests, as say an unconscious (born and grown) person does, there would be grounds for reconsideration of abortion, but the fact is there aren't. The only interests to be considered are that of the mother. Killing a fetus does no harm to ANYONE because the fetus doesn't care if it lives or dies - it doesn't even (however you describe or conceptualize the mind) know, comprehend or think of its own material existence as an entity. It has no conception of space, time, of itself or of anything within the confines of reality. It has feelings in the most primitive sense of psychical sensations, sure, but that does not constitute an interest or evidence that the mind has developed to keep an interest in living. This emerges only after the first few weeks of being born - but never before.

    Now, as indicated, this does not mean anyone can be killed, only those entities that do not have enough mental capacity to think, hold an interest and thus value their own existence.

    Consequently my position is this:
    Killing a fetus is fine because the baby has no interest in its own existence.

    This means whether its human or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND NOT A VALID ARGUMENT THAT WOULD REFUTE MY POSITION. The fetus is a human being, sure, but so what? Right to life is dependent on the holding of an interest - not being a human being.
    Last edited by MegadethFan; Sep 20 2011 at 09:18 AM.
    ---------------------------
    I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?
    Oh, and just so you're not confused, I'm an apatheist libertarian.

    "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky


  2. #2

    Default

    So, just for clarification's sake, killing is morally acceptable up to what age of the child? Clearly a newborn does not hold its own interests.
    "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is. " - Not sure who

    "For those who don't know the difference, under capitalism the government works for you, under socialism/communism, YOU work for the government!" - Me

    "When the Electorate realizes they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, it will herald the end of the Republic." - Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3

    Default

    Your position is fine. By your logic, any severely mentally disabled person unable to discern their own existence is also subject to removal from society, to include people in comas, elderly dementia patients, etc.

    Going by the assumption that a baby in-utero has no concept of it's life. I don't see how that is provable. So your position is supposition.

    Thanks for the debate. Have a nice life.

  4. #4

    Default

    My position is that every human being, from a moral standpoint, should be treated equally. Every human being is at this stage of being at some point, and being essentially younger than other human beings does not justify the killing of a human being. The whole "holds its own interests" theory is just more mental masturbation. You admit the fetus is a human being, human beings should have equal rights. That is the moral basis for our nation after all.
    "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is. " - Not sure who

    "For those who don't know the difference, under capitalism the government works for you, under socialism/communism, YOU work for the government!" - Me

    "When the Electorate realizes they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, it will herald the end of the Republic." - Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whaler17 View Post
    My position is that every human being, from a moral standpoint, should be treated equally. Every human being is at this stage of being at some point, and being essentially younger than other human beings does not justify the killing of a human being. The whole "holds its own interests" theory is just more mental masturbation. You admit the fetus is a human being, human beings should have equal rights. That is the moral basis for our nation after all.
    He's an Ozzie.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whaler17 View Post
    So, just for clarification's sake, killing is morally acceptable up to what age of the child?
    Within the first few weeks. If we were to transcribe this into law, we would have to ascertain a definitive medical time, but it wouldn't be much long after birth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whaler17 View Post
    Clearly a newborn does not hold its own interests.
    Correct, hence early infanticide is ok.
    ---------------------------
    I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?
    Oh, and just so you're not confused, I'm an apatheist libertarian.

    "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Your position is fine. By your logic, any severely mentally disabled person unable to discern their own existence is also subject to removal from society, to include people in comas, elderly dementia patients, etc.
    Correct, unless they had a previous interest and there is the possibility they may revive their consciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Going by the assumption that a baby in-utero has no concept of it's life. I don't see how that is provable. So your position is supposition.
    It isnt supposition. A fetus has no mind. Consciousness emerges a short while after birth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Thanks for the debate. Have a nice life.
    Thanks for the win.
    ---------------------------
    I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?
    Oh, and just so you're not confused, I'm an apatheist libertarian.

    "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whaler17 View Post
    My position is that every human being, from a moral standpoint, should be treated equally.
    Every human being is at this stage of being at some point, and being essentially younger than other human beings does not justify the killing of a human being.
    Why does being a human being mean you cant be killed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whaler17 View Post
    The whole "holds its own interests" theory is just more mental masturbation.
    Not at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whaler17 View Post
    You admit the fetus is a human being, human beings should have equal rights.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whaler17 View Post
    That is the moral basis for our nation after all.
    I dont care, that is irrelevant.
    ---------------------------
    I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?
    Oh, and just so you're not confused, I'm an apatheist libertarian.

    "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky

  9. Default Funny

    Aren't you the one who recently posted opposition to the death penalty, Megadethfan? Seems like a logical contradiction to me.

    Me - I am "anti-life". There are too many people living on this planet already due to man's ingenuity (i.e. man is too smart for his/her own good). This means that I fully favor abortion and I fully favor the death penalty. I can respect a fervently religious person's argument if they are pro-life and opposed to the death penalty. There is a "pro-life" consistency.

    These half-assed arguments where one is pro-choice but against the death penalty seem to come from picking social choices out of a basket as opposed to some type of logical theme behind the decision.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dudeman View Post
    Aren't you the one who recently posted opposition to the death penalty, Megadethfan?
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by dudeman View Post
    Seems like a logical contradiction to me.
    Point out the contradiction, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by dudeman View Post
    Me - I am "anti-life". There are too many people living on this planet already due to man's ingenuity (i.e. man is too smart for his/her own good). This means that I fully favor abortion and I fully favor the death penalty. I can respect a fervently religious person's argument if they are pro-life and opposed to the death penalty. There is a "pro-life" consistency.
    There is no pro-life consistency, unless they are vegan, pacifist etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by dudeman View Post
    These half-assed arguments where one is pro-choice but against the death penalty seem to come from picking social choices out of a basket as opposed to some type of logical theme behind the decision.
    Again point out the inconsistency based on the principle I am applying and explained in the OP.
    ---------------------------
    I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?
    Oh, and just so you're not confused, I'm an apatheist libertarian.

    "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks