Even if your intent wasn’t to be the one selected, that is irrelevant and you primary aim is just to see the performance, intent -& consent like willing sex- doesn’t abrogate moral responsibility for unintended negative consequences to other parties that you know you are heavily casually connected to.
Violinist Tweak instead you and all other fans by going to the performance by -whatever mechanism- will cause serious ill health to the violinist so he needs to be attached to one of the audience after the performance.
Say a lactating mother whose child died on an island wilfully destroys all the baby formula on the island, she just wants to scare the mother who cannot breastfeed. Delivery is late and is seriously delayed, she didn’t intend for the baby to starve and certainly didn’t consent to breastfeeding herself the act is too traumatic. Given no other choice do we then say too bad she didn’t consent or have intention and allow the child to die?
Obligation to offspring being 'normative'. Yes it is, look at any parent to simply abandons their children, or cuts them up, because they never gave that child permission to exploit the resources of the parent to survive. Normally such people at BEST are viewed as mentally ill, and at worst as nearly, or completely inhuman monsters by the rest of society.
In your fertility clinic mixup, I would agree the biological relationship no longer applies.
@mordinvan "Obligation to offspring being 'normative'."
Why? There's nothing about a biological relationship that is in any way normative. 'Parents' in the normative sense of that word, ASSUME responsibility for their children, whether they are biologically related or not. It's that assumption that makes them obligated, not the simple fact that they're biologically entwined.
@mordinvan Because there is a simple alternative: give it up for adoption. The baby doesn't have to use your body against your will, but a fetus does. World of difference.
This first tweek of your is more analogous to knowing you're going to a party, and got drunk, and then were rapped. As you took part in an action, which in no way directly related to the act of being hooked up to a musician, or even forcing the musician into a state of dependency in the first place.
@mordinvan "is more analogous to knowing you're going to a party..."
Exactly: you knew there was a chance you would be raped if you went to the party. You went anyway. Are you responsible for being raped? Of course not. The fact that you choose to do something which you knew might lead to it happening doesn't mean you are responsible.
You know you might be kidnapped and subjected to medical experimentation? You still have no responsibility for the musician needing you help in the first place. Kidnap is still a crime, as the the assault, and administration of drugs needed to perform the procedure. However when a woman has sex(nonrape only), she knowingly and willingly allows an action which may cause pregnancy.
@mordinvan "she knowingly and willingly allows an action which may cause pregnancy."
And you knowingly and willingly allowed an action that caused you to be hooked up to a violinist. The fact that your actually being hooked up was a crime is neither here nor there: you could have avoided it by not going out, but you chose not to.
Your analogy is really falling apart here. You're equating the biological process of getting pregnant with something that makes rape looks loving and tender. You left your house, slight difference between that and sex don't you think? Sex has always been associated with pregnancy, and going to concerts has rarely if even been associated with medical experimentation.
@mordinvan "Sex has always been associated with pregnancy, and going to concerts has rarely if even been associated with medical experimentation."
First off, it's not an experiment. Experiments are when you try to learn something. This is a life saving procedure.
Second, it makes no difference what has 'always' or 'rarely' been the case. What matters is what IS the case. And in this case we KNOW that people are being kidnapped, but we go anyway.
I am presently unaware of any standard life saving procedure which has people sharing circulatory systems for extended periods of time. If you can cite one I'd love to hear it, but otherwise I'm calling this experimental.
We go, because presumably the cops are working to stop the problem. I'm unware of swat teams busting into people's houses just to hose out a woman's pussy out with spermicide, but they will break into an opera house to stop human trafficking.
No its not. Sex leads to pregnancy, opera does not lead to irrecoverable kidney failure in someone else.
If you think it does, please consult a doctor, and they will confirm the 2 are not in any way linked.
Your violinist case would be equivalent to a woman being drugged, and forcibly impregnated with someone else's fetus, which most of us would say is far worse then normal rape, as its even stranger, and harder to comprehend.
There is a very potent difference between the violinist, and a fetus however. The violinist case doesn't have you willingly take an action knowing there is a risk that you destroy the violinists kidney's and thereby make them in need of life support, with you as the only possible source of that support given present medical technologies.
@mordinvan Well that's an easy fix. Let's say before you go out to the symphony, you read a story about how people are being kidnapped and hooked up to musicians. You realize that if you go out, there's a chance you might be hooked up to a famous musician. You decide to go out anyway, and sure enough you're kidnapped and hooked up. Are you now obliged to stay hooked up to the violinist?
That does not address my objection. My objection is at no part in your scenario does my going there MAKE him dependent upon my kidneys for any reason which could possibly be used to hold me legally accountable.
Come up with some scenario where the actors actions have ~1/600 chance of making the musicians kidney's fail, in a way which any reasonable person could see coming, and yet intentionally chooses to act in that fashion knowing the risks.
@mordinvan "My objection is at no part in your scenario does my going there MAKE him dependent upon my kidneys"
I think you mean to say 'it doesn't put him in a state where he needs to use someone else' body against their will' or some such. (Strictly speaking, going DOES 'make him dependent on your kidneys', since if you hadn't gone, he never would have been hooked up to you in the first place. But I get your point.) (cont'd)
@mordinvan But either way, you still have a problem: the violinist exists PRIOR to your action, but the fetus does not. The only way the mother 'makes the fetus dependent upon her body' is by making the fetus exist in the first place. By acting to make the violinist dependent up on you, you're harming an existent being; by having sex there is no being to harm. It's only later that it becomes a being. So the scenario you're asking for would have to be something like this: (cont'd)
@mordinvan A mother decides to have a baby, knowing that she has a genetic defect, which might lead to her child having kidney failure. The child is born, grows up, becomes a famous violinist, then his kidneys fail. Without asking, the society for music lovers hooks the mother up to her son, the violinist. They say 'hey, it's your fault he has this kidney problem in the first place. You knew any offspring you have might have kidney problems, but you chose to have a kid anyway. (cont'd)
@mordinvan So because you choose to have the kid in light of that possibility, you're morally obliged to let him use your body to save his life.' Let's further stipulate that while she is the biological mother, that she gave the child up for adoption, so he is still a stranger to her (as the fetus is a stranger to the mother).
This seems to meet all the criteria you set out, and capture the 'bringing into existence along with the dependency' condition. Do you think she's obligated to stay?
Without question, she created a defective human being, knowingly, and willingly.
Several more problems with this analogy however.
a) genetic problems, usually have a frequency no lower the 1/4 of rearing their head, making her 150 times as responsible as someone who simply had sex, as that's closer to the 1/600 figure I listed ( assuming birth contorl)
and b) what is it with kidneys? we had dialysis machines... go for the liver, we can't fix that yet.
All right. Suppose you find yourself in a building somewhere. There's an earthquake. The building collapses and you find yourself trapped deep underground in a narrow space. There's only one other survivor in view - a 3-year-old child who's pinned beneath some wreckage but otherwise unhurt.
Here's the situation. The 3-year-old is blocking the only way out. You can escape simply by killing the child and using some hand sharp-edged wreckage to dismember her body and then climb to safety.
(cont'd) (2) Now, maybe you can advance some sort of argument to justify doing this, or waiting, or waiting for the child to die of natural causes, or waiting for some period of time and *then* cutting up the child.
What I don't think it is possible to do, in any legitimate fashion, though -- is to assert that the *child* is in any meaningful sense *holding you hostage.*
The child has made no choice of any kind. She is not in any conceivable sense of the term a moral agent.
(cont'd) (3) Any more than if it were a grown man or woman in coma. The only moral agent -- the only individual in a position to make a moral choice is you.
As far as I can see the only appropriate characterization of this situation is that the *circumstances* have placed you in a position where your choices are limited -- not the child. The child bears no responsibility and to frame the argument in that sense --
(cont'd) (4) -- in the sense of one person *being used* by another, when one of the parties has no awareness even of her own existence, strikes me as absurd.
You have been placed in a circumstance where you must weigh conflicting moral obligations -- the fetus, by virtue of having no capacity to choose, has no moral standing in the situation -- any more than the child whose been thrust into the gap in the tunnel by the earthquake.
(cont'd) (4) You must weigh your rights in the matter -- rights to personal autonomy, obligations to others, et al -- and your obligations to another person (presuming, for the sake of argument that one considers a fetus to be a person).
And one *does* have an obligation to other persons -- even to complete strangers and even greater obligation to one's own offspring.
There are obligations to preserve the lives of others -- and an even greater obligation to refrain from taking it.
@prodprod there are a number of relevant dissimilarities between the scenario you laid out and the case of the famous violinist. My biggest question is: if I don't kill the child will help be arriving at some point to save us both? That would make this a lot more analogous. And, is this time frame anything like 9 months? Does a few hours or a few days amount to 9 months? Also, the main point above was about a person who would die without support, not one who might be impeding your survival.
@creepyoldman2 The world is full of people who are in dire violinist-like circumstances but whose circumstances place no immediate obligation upon me to do anything about it.
The heart of the argument is that a person has no right to "impose upon me" irrespective of their circumstances. That is, to use me for their ends without my permission. Thus, the violinist, even though he'd die without me, or likewise, the fetus, has no right to use me, without my permission.
(cont'd) (2) That argument holds irrespective of whether I am in a life or death situation, am being significantly inconvenienced, or even inconvenienced at all. Someone doesn't have the right to use me in any way, without my permission.
My point is that neither the comatose violinist, nor the fetus, is "using" anyone, because implicit in the notion of 'using" is the idea of intent.
Entities that are lacking consciousness lack intent.
(cont'd) (3) It makes no more sense to speak of the "right" of an unconscious person to use somebody as it does to talk of the rights of a fungus infection to grow between our toes or of useful bacteria to grow in our gut. It's not as if one has more "right" to be where it is because it's "useful" -- neither kind of lifeform has any choice in the matter - any more than a fetus or an unconscious violinist.
And that's irrespective of whether it causes a little harm, a lot, or none.
(cont'd) That is, there is certainly an ethical basis on which you can decide what to do about an athlete's foot infection, or about a comatose violinist, whether connected to you or not, or about a fetus within your body, starting with the operating assumption that the fetus is a person, or not.
But I simply don't see how one can construct an ethical model that is based on the idea of treating a non-conscious operator as if it were a conscious operator "using" another conscious operator.
(cont'd) (4) Regarding the specific example -- one can obviously draw major dissimilarities between the "violinist" example and the specific situation of pregnancy as well -- pregnancy, under normal circumstances, doesn't restrict the pregnant woman from going about her normal life and doing what she normally does for the majority of her pregnancy.
But that's not the issue in question -- the question is - should anybody be able to attach themselves to your body against your will?
(cont'd) (5) Well, if the question is -- should *I* be able to intentionally attach myself to your body against your will - no. Should I be able to attach somebody else to your body against your will - no.
But if I hook up, say, my newborn baby to your body against your will *I* have done something wrong, but my newborn has not.
If I lock you in a room and wire the door so that if you open it, it sets off a hand grenade and blows up a baby outside, that makes *me* a nasty person.
(cont'd) And certainly, you can assert that you have no right to be kept in that room. But that doesn't somehow mean that the *baby* is guilty of keeping you in that room because you have to kill the baby to leave the room.
Neither does the fact of your imprisonment, unjust though it may be change the fact that you have a legitimate moral obligation to that baby.
If it was life and death, maybe you'd open the door. But if you knew you were going to go free in a few months, maybe not.
Am I the only one who thinks that unhooking from the violinist is morally reprehensible? You are not responsible for what the society did to put you in this situation, but you are responsible for what you do once you are in the situation, and unhooking from the violinist would be killing him through an act of your own volition. Where's the problem?
@derfos666 Just to clarify, the question isn't whether or not unhooking yourself is morally reprehensible, it's are you morally OBLIGATED to keep yourself hooked up. Nobody thinks abortions are awesome...
I am still trying to understand this analogy. It seems to me that the woman is engaging in an activity that will potentially result in a child and by taking such an action she is morally responsible for the child that results. For the analogy that seems like you go to a concert where there is a draw to see which seat is responsible for the duties of providing short term support. You can enjoy thousands of concerts but never be selected but if you are, are you then obligated to fulfill the duty?
The last point SR made was interesting about the woman injected with a fetus who isn't biologically connected to her in any way. Abortion is always wrong, but the question is: to what degree? The term applicable here is "mitigating circumstance". Rape would also, quite obviously, fall into this category. If a woman is raped, is it date rape or random rape, in a felonous manner? How violent is it? If date rape, did she lead him on or shut hum down? Abortion is always wrong. But, to what degree?
The incarnation of this thought experiment I read was quite a bit different. In it, you are in the position of a doctor who is at a holiday party at the hospital. You have too much to drink, take the elevator down to a different floor and pass out in an empty bed. The next morning you wake up and are told the situation, except that rather than being permanently conjoined, it's for 9 months.
My initial analogy of the condoms was intended to counter your arguement regaurding consentual sex. If a woman (without a hystorectomy, of course) consents to the sex, then both she and the male acknowledge the possibility that the woman will become pregnent. Therefore, she has conseneted to the possibility of becoming pregnent and the possible creation of a fetus. This arguement does not attack nor defend pro choice or pro life, merely your definition.
A hysterectomy costs a pretty penny. Not everyone has the dough to scrape out for it and on a quick look-see of the price, it seems to cost overall just under 10K. So no, I don't consider not buying one just cause to blame rape on the woman, due to the possibility she may not be capable of affording it. However she could have taken measures to prevent said rape, especially if there is potential risk in the area she is venturing.
@Axen901 So shelling out 10K is too high a burden to place on a woman, but asking her to abstain from sex, potentially for her whole life, is not? Is a lifetime of sexual autonomy worth less in your mind than 10K?
@SisyphusRedeemed Giggity. No, I was implying that it may not be possible for every woman to get a hystorectomy and therefore remove all blame of the pregnancy from their selves. Therefore it is not the best birth control as it would seem I was implying to you.
If a woman goes to the opera alone, assuming that she to is warned about the possible kidnapping, then she too is responsible in the same respect as the couple with a condom.
@Axen901 So by that same logic, if a woman gets raped, she is obliged to keep the baby, since she is responsible for not taking the right precautions (i.e.-getting a hysterectomy) to make sure that any rape did not lead to a pregnancy, correct?
@SisyphusRedeemed She is obligated to keep the baby because that baby is a valuable human being no less valuable then you and me and would therefor amount to killing an innocent human being. Why would the child have to pay for the crime of his father? Suppose we have a 3 year old girl who is conceived of rape standing right in front of you, would we give the mother the right to kill her because the girl was conceived of rape?
No of course not, so you would have to say that there is a morally significant difference between the unborn and born. So that's the only relevant question before us, what is the unborn? I would maintain that there are good scientific reasons for thinking unborn is a human being from the moment of conception and there are no non-arbitrary morally significant differences between the unborn and you and me.
In response to your first argument, according to a popular sitcom from the early 00's, the best birth control is "Don't do it". Consentual sex leaves both parties responsible for the pregnancy, the woman included, even if they use safe sex. Condoms warn that there is a slight chance of not working, thus safe sex has risks.
@Axen901 Actually, the best birth control is a hysterectomy. Abstinence is no guarantee, since you can always be raped. Each year, thousands of women who are practicing abstinence are raped and get pregnant, but no woman who's had a hysterectomy has ever gotten pregnant. Do you think women are obliged to either get a hysterectomy or keep a pregnancy if they get raped?
I think the idea of people knowing that some people that go to the opera get abducted and hooked up to violinists is not analogous. A better example would be that some people really want to be hooked up to violinists, and others just like the opera. When you go to the opera though, it is assumed that you want to be hooked up. When you are chosen, you are presumed to desire the result, and in that sense, simply changing your mind is not enough to justify killing the violinist...
Now, the presumption comes because some people want to be hooked up, while the rest know that there is a good possibility of it. Therefore, while the act of going to the opera is essentially a gamble, it is one that people go into knowing the possibilities. In that sense, your presumption of willingness is depended upon by the violinist, and you have relinquished your presumption of autonomy and therefore the greater good is more appropriate. Your discomfort is not as valuable as a life.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that life begins at conception, in the manner we perceive it, but that doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, youtube's short reply space has already made my argument hacked up. Suffice it to say, that a really good argument can be made for protecting a fetus, in any stage of development, from murder, and I can do so without suggesting that at any time the fetus is a viable human being.
The one overwhelming argument for legal abortion is that the alternative is worse. This is the reason it was legalized in the UK.
The abortion rate doesn't significantly change whether legal or illegal. Legal or illegal abortions terminate the foetus. But backstreet abortionists are more likely to kill the mothers or make them infertile.
Well, that assumes that we can lay 'spontaneous' events at God's doorstep. I would agree we can, but I suspect a religious person would try to avoid that conclusion.
A religious person would have to believe in evolution to shift the responsibility from God. And once you go down that road, God become irrelevant.
What interests me is why God aborts them. Because they're so good they ought to go straight to heaven? Or so evil straight to hell? Whatever happened to all souls having an equal chance.
And if God didn't abort Hitler, the evil souls must be incredibly evil.
@sisyphus- for the 3rd objection...would placing the fetus in a small corner be more human than killing it and putting it out of it's misery. Remember the move last of the Mohicans where the one of the guys were being burned to death,slowly, by a tribe, and his frined shot him with one shot to end "the pain" Isn't a quick painless death less brutal tahn a alow one?
2nd question why aren't abortions performed this way? It would definitely shutt he pro-life/anti-choice agenda them up big time.
Don't agree you've answered the 'responsibility objection'.
The crucial point is, that in the case of abortion, the decision to have sex not only creates the rship of dependence but the very needs of the dependant.
In the new experiment, the needs of the violinist were preexisting. The level of culpability for the creating the relationship of dependence may be the same, but fundementally, the decision to attend the opera did not create the violinist's need for sustenance.
I suppose you're right that you've pointed to a disanalogy there, but I don't see how that difference can possibly bear the moral weight you want it to.
If you've made a decision with the knowledge that it may place person x in a position where they need resource y to survive, and this in fact occurs, surely there is an ethical duty to provide person x with resource y?
PS: I should note you did an excellent job of dismantling the remainder of the argument. I'm actually pro choice myself, I've just never placed much credence upon this thought experiment, except in the case of sexual assault.
There is certainly a prima facie duty to provide them with resource y, but there are many circumstances in which that prima facie duty can be overridden. Particularly, (a) when the likelihood of my action causing that need is very small, (b) when giving Y comes at a particularly high cost to me, (c) when the only way to avoid them needing Y is to make an unreasonable sacrifice, etc. All of these (and more) hold in (most) cases of pregnancy due to voluntary sex.
I see some force from point c). I remain unconvinced though.
Assuming your contentions, does the character of abortion then change where pregnancy followed a failure to use adequate birth control? After, such an example significantly alters the likelihood and the level of sacrifice (having to use birth control during sex).
I certainly would say that someone who fails to use birth control when it is readily available are being more irresponsible and carry a heavier burden accordingly. But it is still not so heavy as to override the woman's right to control her body.
I don't suggest it overrides the right of a woman to choose. That's why I'm pro-choice.
More fundamentally, I'm suggesting that a choice to abort is unethical, or at least it violates my own ethical standpoint. Where you say points a, b and c outweigh the responsibility of the woman, I do not agree. It's extraordinarily subjective and probably the main reason I have a problem with the violinist thought experiment; it seeks to eviscerate those shades of grey.
i think you could go even farther concerning the responsibility objection.
Say you get in a car crash with the violinist, (a crash that is your fault) and by some bizarre occurrence, only his kidneys are damaged, causing his condition. Now that you are directly responsible for the violinist needing to use your body to survive, are you obliged to stay connected? I still think no.
Hi Sisypus. First of, let me say, that I think you presented your argument (rebutal) in a respectful manner, so Kudos to you for that. It's hard no tto let emotion drive the thought process when discussing something as controversial as abortion. I must say, though, that I don't agree w/your stance; Thompson's original argument was actually a bit irresponsible, because she viewed the mother as a NON-ACTIVE participant. In effect, she was almost making that pregnancy akin to rape. This is not the
not the case. In rape, sex is forced upon a woman. She is not an active participant in the sexual act. When a woman willfully & freely has sex, she makes herself an active participant in the ACT that could lead to pregnancy (and should be responsible for the consequences). If a person runs outside & starts shooting his gun up in the air (even in a drunken state), he is still responsible if that bullet comes down & harms someone. The opera analogy (you presented) isn't a good example, b/c those
Hey BBB. Thanks for the compliment, and your thoughts.
Strictly speaking, all Thompson meant the violinist analogy to do originally was prove that an absolute prohibition on abortion was untenable. The violinist does appear to be most analogous to pregnancy due to rape, but even if all she does is prove that abortion in such circumstances is permissible, that's no small thing.
opera-goers still did not participate in the act that got them kidnapped. If I get on a subway (knowing that I could be mugged), it still would not make me responsible for that mugging. I did not intend to be mugged, true, but I didn't participate in my mugging either (if I walked up to the kidnappers and said "please kidnap me" and tied rope around my own wrists..then I would share a responsibility there. That's the only argument that could be made in the opera analogy).
But I think the violinist proves more than that. There is a difference between consenting to sex and consenting to pregnancy, and the prior does not entail the later. Even if she is 'responsible' in the sense that her decisions led to her being pregnant, it is not the case that she, at any point, consented to having her body used by the fetus. If she did not consent, then the fetus has no right to use her body against her will.
Right, but that goes back to the man with the gun. When you participate in an act, you know that (regardless of intention) you are responsible for any consequence that may arise from it; You didn't HAVE to consent to the injury or harm to that person. The fact is, that you made it happen. We must also remember, that the mother is the one that (through her actions..wanted or not) created the fetus that occupies her womb. It's not the same as an outside invader.
I think this argument can only stem really from two premises.
One: Life is sacred, humanity is sacred because of it's intrinsic value.
Two: Life is not sacred, has no intrinsic value, only the subject value we place on life.
I think for the latter premise the secularist is more obligated to take this stance as a matter of course. As there is really no external moral principle to objectify the former position. At least I can't think of one.
I guess the more pertinent question would be, is it morally acceptable to make that decision for the fetus? Which most agree is a viable human being, at the fetal stage.
Another question could be, if by aborting fetuses could we be implicitly redistributing our normative, moral value system for the worse.
Should there be an objective precedent on this issue, or is it relative? From the more secularistic premise, I don't think one can justify not aborting using objective moral principles.
I think it is. A vegetable cannot make decisions for him/herself, so a family member/significant other must make decisions for them. It is the same for a fetus. They cannot make decisions (or, in most cases, are INCAPABLE of doing so), so it is well within a mothers right to make decisions for them.
I think it all depends on what our definition of "life" is. Sure, by normal usage, fetuses are alive. But so are vegetables. Should we keep them around forever?
Good analogy, but I think the obvious flaw with it is that an individual in a permanent vegetative state is clinically brain, whereas the fetus is not brain dead; instead the fetus is in an early developmental stage.
In the case of the fetus there is biological potentiality that predisposes growth in it. Just like we don't condemn the child at three to death because he has not developed fully cognitively, why condemn the fetus to death?
The problem is that professionals are not always accurate in deeming a vegetative state permanent or temporary. There have been some who were supposed to be permanent and came out, and some who were supposed to be temporary and never came out.
By basing your pro-life position off of potentiality, you must concede that vegetables always have the potential to recover. You must also concede that inmates on death row may be innocent, and as such should not be put to death.
The cases you mentioned strengthen your argument definitely, but I think they also shift vital focus. The emphasis in the vegetables case is wether his/her life is STILL relevant, as a result of a significantly impaired, damaged brain.
Whereas the abortion of a fetus dilemma ultimately comes down to should we give this developing human being a chance to develop, or kill it. If so, whose to say that in a decade or so we wont be doing the same to newborns.
Lover180, you suggest we shouldn't kill fetuses, because that could lead to the slippery slope of killing newborns.
However, this argument only works if you can show that we shouldn't be killing newborns in "a decade or so". I don't think you can.
To me this argument sounds like "if we let black men vote, whose to say that in a decade or so, we won't be doing the same to women?" And so it was, 50 years later, we did, and look back appalled. You can't judge the future from today's perspective.
Good analogy, except it uses a blatantly juxtaposed comparison. The reason being, the normative value of human life is accepted as hierarchically more important than everything else, i.e., voting, etc. Plus the giving and taking aspect.
If in ten years we are killing newborns, I would think it the most horrific, and appalling time in human history. As I personally believe that to take life, especially innocent life is wrong, objectively. I think many others, including yourself feel the same way.
Lover180 I think your issue with my analogy doesn't work, you are judging them with today's moral opinions, but they would have looked at you just as appalled as you look at them.
You rely on everyone feeling that killing newborns is so obviously wrong that it can be used as a premise to new action. Yet this subjective belief has not always held, eugenically oriented societies have killed newborns that were found lacking, The Biblical god has commanded the killing of infants 1 Sam 15:2-3
Interesting. I'm not familiar with the contextual account behind the scripture you gave me, but I will look into it. = D
However, I am aware that under the mosaic law the Israelites, under special circumstances, were sometimes commanded by God to exterminate pagan nations, but this was not a precedent for how God viewed, views, the unborn. And therefore can't be treated as such.
Exodus 21: 22, 23, i.e., a mosaic law code states the precedent, and implies how God views the unborn
As far as Eugenics is concerned the practice is flawed, as there is really no moral criteria that justifies the practice. And it is something from which abuse almost naturally follows, often justified with pseudo-science, or conjecture, e.g., consider what happened under the Nazi regime.
If eugenics is ever sanctioned, we will be one step closer to a society whose normative values are redistributed for the worse. And natural rights will become prescribed rights, for specific demographics
I agree with your assessment on eugenics. It doesn't require us to call it "wrong". We can recognize it's consequences can be undesirable without needing dogma.
For infanticide, my point is that each action needs to be considered with respect to that time and society. If you are willing to look at context for the Biblical god commanding it, then you accept that morality changes. If objective morals are correct, then context is not relevant, but noone would ever judge actions in this manner.
My logic chain placed emphasis on the biological potentiality that predisposes the probable growth in the fetus. The same potentiality that exists in the three year old, who is also far from fully developed cognitively, physically, etc.
My point being essentially, if we couldn't imagine killing the three year old, who ultimately DEPENDENT. Why would we kill the fetus who has the same developmental potentiality?
I think strategically appealing to people in permanently vegetative states is not the best move. May pro-life people will say YES, you should keep them around until they die a natural death. A better point, IMO, is a tumor. It's alive, biologically human and genetically distinct; does it have a 'right to life?' Or skin cells--they have the potential to become an adult human-being (if they're cloned), do they have a right to life?
One must also take into account the economic element. What does a low income mother do when the condom unknowingly breaks? What does the family do when the mother has triplets, or quadruplets, or octuplets?
Emotional appeal plays its part in all aspects of society; but there comes a point where it is just not financially possible.
One should note how those that extremely pro-life are also those who are disinclined to adopt.
Well I knew it didn't fit completely, but what I was trying to say is that if you're not aware than you don't care what happens to you, much less are capable of even doing so.
Basically, only in hindsight are we glad to be alive.
Secular ethics can be completely objective. Kant's moral philosophy, for example, is objective and secular (even though Kant himself believed in God, his ethics wasn't based on that belief). Utilitarianism is another objective, secular moral theory.
Exactly. Society must have some form of objective morality in order to function. It may not be objective in the sense that a supreme being dictates it, but that the majority agree.
Exactly. That is the whole point behind the term. In a secular society, opinions differ with regard to ethical dilemmas; but an all-encompassing rule of law must be applied to all; blind justice, if you will.
This does lead to ethical dilemmas to outsiders. Spartans used to have sex with little boys. They thought it morally sound. Obviously you and I don't. It always depends on the point of view.
Greywyn7, I think most religionists, and also myself, would not consider that to be objective, but merely subjective to a larger group of peoople. A thing can only be objectively true if it is true outside the mind, regardless of perception.
I am quite confident that all morality, everywhere, to everyone, in every case, has and always will be subjective.
Morality (dictated by personal opinion, experience, etc) is subjective to people. However, when discussing something like a rule of law, a theist (not religionist =D) believes the objective law to be gods word. In Christianity's case, this would be the Ten Commandments, among others.
Regardless of the existence of god, however, personal morality will always be subjective. Assuming what we believe to be free will isn't taken from us, that is.
Well, other people might care, for one. For another, surely there are some things that we ought to value for their own sake, even if they're not capable of 'valuing' themselves. If I'm the last person on earth and I have the Mona Lisa I should value it, even if it doesn't suit my own personal aesthetic tastes. But this is a much more complicated issue.
"...surely there are some things that we ought to value for their own sake, even if they're not capable of 'valuing' themselves"
Well, once you begin saying phrasing things this way, things take on a distinct subjective tone. Maybe I don't feel the same way you do. Let's say I have my own philosophy.
Would one be right and one wrong, objectively? Or is it merely vantage point?
Thank you for your patience by the way. You're one of the few non-stuck up intellectuals I watch on here.
I think you're grossly over simplifying things. There can be versions of the 'intrinsic value' thesis that don't appeal to the idea of the sanctity of human life ('sanctity' is a particularly religious form of that thesis.) Also, there are forms of the 'objective value' thesis that appeal neither to intrinsic value, nor sanctity. And in either case, both of your premises are untenable on their face and can easily be shown to lead to implausible conclusions.
Great points, and maybe I am over simplifying, but if so it is in the vein of the most essential--in my opinion--debate which ultimately precedes this one. The God debate.
I'd be interested to learn more about these other forms of the objective value thesis that don't appeal to intrinsic value, or sanctity. And the versions of the versions of the intrinsic value thesis which don't appeal to sanctity. I was under the impression that they were very much related.
No matter how you turn up and down on the pregnancy, only half is biologically from the mother... the other half is from a stranger! (unless it's a cousin, eeeew, not smart!)
The permission for the baby to use the womans uterus is granted by the decision of the woman to have sex. As mammals and as human beings, the act of sex is designed to create new life. This is not to say that sex was meant to be used always as a means of procreation, but the possibility of creating a new life IS there every time we have sex.
The woman might attempt to deny this fact of nature, but nevertheless, the act of sex is allowing the possibility of pregnancy (even? if not intended), and that in itself, is giving the baby (another person), permission to use her body or organs. Since women are intelligent human beings (and thus realize this), if a new life should be created, she does not then have the right to kill that new, separate, living person.
The killing of children is NOT a religious issue but a human rights issue& it is as a "human rights issue" that this battle must be fought.Along with being the organization that is 100% responsible for killing these human beings the American Medical Association is exploiting ALL women by claiming that all of the killing that has taken place so far & all of the killing that will continue to take place into the future is a woman's fault,or as they call it a "woman's choice".
People say \"If it jeapordizes the woman's health\" But if you read the fine print, you'll learn that the governments defines the woman's health as mental health, physical health, spiritual health, emotional health, etc.
So If she simply sees the baby as an inconvenience, she could claim that it will effect her \"mental health\" and have a partial birth aborition without any further questions.
A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.) Key phrase- "another species". The Embryo/fetus? is always human.
Google "Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite"
for why your position is inaccurate, educate yourself. The site you want is hosted by libertarians for life
Now you think that the dictionary can win a moral debate. I'll bet you I can find a definition of 'parasite' that does not use the phrase 'another species' or the equivalent. You've proven you can cherry-pick with the best of them. Now try actually making an argument.
Sis...That point is entirely up to you, you are the one commenting that they exist, come forth with some proof! If you want to make empty claims,than I suggest you do your research to back up what you say.
You're missing the point: you CANNOT settle a debate like this SIMPLY by pointing to a dictionary. If I did find such a definition would you concede that the fetus is a parasite? Of course you wouldn't, nor should you be, because how we define terms does not settle substantive moral issues.
Mental health does qualify as a health issue,I assure.What I am saying is that these women will use any 'excuse'or'reason they can dig up to justify killing their 'little inconveniences'. SHAME!!
You clearly have no grasp at all on the psychology of a woman who chooses to have an abortion. Women don't get abortions because they think a baby would be 'inconvenient.' I've seen many of those 'execution' orders your speak of and I have never once seen a woman put 'for convenience' as her reason for electing the procedure.
You are pro-death,you not only condone it,you support&defend abortion.You even encourage a mother hiring a hit man to forcibly enter her womb with the sole intention of dismembering,tearing,ripping her little baby into pieces.Then with his cold,hard tools of his trade,suctioning out the tiny body parts into a stainless steel colander to be reassembled.FOR MONEY!When you say pro-choice,you are pro-death.
I do not argue this issue from a moral view point but a human rights stance. You need to reread the statements. I am talking about a law that allows a mother to kill the very baby she helped,the baby who had no way of avoiding his/her circumstances.I'm talking about murder.Perhaps the govt. needs to read your book..all laws are based on morals.
All laws are NOT based on morals. Do you think it's 'immoral' to drive on the left side of the road? If so then England, Japan and Australia are a bunch of seriously immoral people.
How on earth can we consider & support our own mother killing us because we were the product of rape? Does this mean anyone is superior to someone who is the product of rape? I cannot exchange one tragic event with one ten times worse!
Also, RAPE IS HORRIBLE. The solution to rape is to stop it from happening not let it go unpunished. The act is inhuman and the penalty under law isn't severe enough.Rapists need to know that there is no room for their existence in society
1. It's not your mother, the fetus whose mother it would would never even know.
2. Because she has the right to autonomy and what YOU suggest is the continuation of the rape, by forcing her to stay pregnant you condone the use of her body against her will by another after the rapist.
3. No it doesn't, I never said the fetsu was innately bad. This is about women's rights
Bumbly...The govt.has made this issue a public issue.I would no more sit by knowing the neighbor was abusing his neices than sit by knowing women are killing their babies.I have a responsibility to speak up for these live.The mother&infants lives.Killing her baby only complicates her feelings of violation,it does nothing to solve the issue of a new life. TWO WRONGS NEVER MAKE A RIGHT!!
The government cannot make private issues public issues- treating it as such does not make it so.
Don't put your own opinions onto other women- it may make some feel confused, for others it's utter relief. In any case the choice should still be available- it's not down to people like you who think you know best. The women involved know best.
You are anti-woman and anti-choice. You not only condone the oppression of women, you support and defend that oppression. You even encourage the government to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, under threat of legal punishment. When you say pro-life, you are anti-woman and anti-choice.
Now that round of name calling might have made us both feel better, but it didn't change anyone's mind. Can we stick to rational argument, please?
"Thou shalt not kill" is just as much an imposition as being robbed at gunpoint. & if imposing our beliefs onto others is such a bad thing, why should we impose our beliefs onto an unborn child?Then I guess we shouldn't 'press' our 'beliefs' on the murderer or rapist....I WOULD NEVER MURDER OR RAPE, but it's not up to me to decide for others what they might want to do.....Right??? WRONG.
AND as for what the baby would think about his/her father? It is up to loving people to support the child and explain to him that his father gave us a great gift in him and that no matter who the man was or what his intentions were that we would never think of taking the boy's life for he did nothing wrong but make the world brighter.Because I have a rainbow at the end of my storm,pot of gold at the end of my rainbow.Silver lining around my clouds.I made out like a bandit!!
The rapist did not give the woman a 'great gift', that is an incredibly insulting and inhuman thing to say, the child if born should know exactly what its father was.
Frankly the end of that message portrays you as mental.
Mother's had their rights when they 'chose'to have sex,intended or not.Now that they have helped to create a new life,they have no right to end that life. 9 months is not a life sentence,it is a fraction of their life,considering the life expectancy of a woman in America
A rapist only asks for 10 minutes to use a woman's body against her will, much less than 9 months. Do you think that women are not morally permitted to kill their rapists in self-defense? It's only 10 minuets, after all, how does that compare with a human life!
How on earth can we consider&support our own mother killing us because we were the product of rape?Does this mean anyone is superior to someone who is the product of rape?I cannot exchange one tragic event(rape)with one ten times worse(murder)!RAPE IS HORRIBLE.The solution to rape is to stop it from happening,not let it go unpunished.The act is inhuman & the penalty under law isn't severe enough.
In instance of rape the mother's CHOICE should be supported no matter what that choice is. The already conscious and living woman should be your concern, not the fertilised egg, if not i would question how your view women? as incubators?
The act of walking down the stree is allowing the possibility of getting hit by a car: does that mean that when you walk down the street you consent to getting hit by a car? You're intelligent, you realize that you might get hit, so if you are hit then you have no right to ask for medical help. You should have known better.
I'm not; I'm comparing walking down the street with choosing to have sex. Both are morally permissible actions that sometimes lead to undesired consequences. But consenting to the antecedent does NOT entail consenting to the consequence. If you disagree, than that means that when you walk down the street you consent to being hit by a car. That is ludicrous.
How about this.You go to the bar,get drunk.Now you put the key in the ignition&drive home.On the way,you kill several ppl.Did you,by starting your car& driving drunk,agree to the possibility of killing these ppl??And if not,why should you be up on charges on man slaughter.You didn't intend to kill them.But by driving drunk,you consented to the possibility of killing.With pregnancy,she agreed to sex.The possibility of conception.Now, 9 months later, she must give birth,not kill.
No, she didn't: she invited the man's penis into her vagina. That's like saying because you invited your next door neighbor over for coffee his son can break into your house at night and take whatever he wants.
Sis...does this ignorant woman know that when she invites a man's penis into her vagina that she could conceive a child. Were do you meet these women,do they live in caves??
Again, what the woman KNOWS is irrelevant: all that matters is what she CONSENTS TO. She does NOT consent to letting another person use her body and she can kill to enforce that.
She consented to letting a man use her body. She consented to a pregnancy by having sex. She consented to all of it. If she is mature enough to have sex, she is mature enough to have a baby.If I drive drunk,I consent to the possibility that I may kill someone or myself.I consented as soon as I put the key in the ignition.Just as she did when she put his penis in her vagina.This is a fact. This is life, get a clue.
the maturity level of the woman doesn't matter, unprotected sex doesn't equal yes, to all women for pregnancy. because not all unprotected sex leads to pregnancy, it's just your very old, out-date, sexist opinion.
she has the right to have sex anyway she chooses, and if pregnancy happens, she has a right to abort it...she has the right not to be used by the embryo.
Even if your intent wasn’t to be the one selected, that is irrelevant and you primary aim is just to see the performance, intent -& consent like willing sex- doesn’t abrogate moral responsibility for unintended negative consequences to other parties that you know you are heavily casually connected to.
Cy5208 2 months ago
Violinist Tweak instead you and all other fans by going to the performance by -whatever mechanism- will cause serious ill health to the violinist so he needs to be attached to one of the audience after the performance.
Cy5208 2 months ago
Whether speeding, shooting into a crowd or Boonin’s toxic waste analogy whether there was intent or consent is irrelevant.
Cy5208 2 months ago
Say a lactating mother whose child died on an island wilfully destroys all the baby formula on the island, she just wants to scare the mother who cannot breastfeed. Delivery is late and is seriously delayed, she didn’t intend for the baby to starve and certainly didn’t consent to breastfeeding herself the act is too traumatic. Given no other choice do we then say too bad she didn’t consent or have intention and allow the child to die?
Cy5208 2 months ago
Consent/intent isn’t necessary for moral responsibility when another moral entity is harmed and owed compensation.
Cy5208 2 months ago
Great video.
johndenverlich 3 months ago
SMH........
loganorin 1 year ago
Obligation to offspring being 'normative'. Yes it is, look at any parent to simply abandons their children, or cuts them up, because they never gave that child permission to exploit the resources of the parent to survive. Normally such people at BEST are viewed as mentally ill, and at worst as nearly, or completely inhuman monsters by the rest of society.
In your fertility clinic mixup, I would agree the biological relationship no longer applies.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@mordinvan "Obligation to offspring being 'normative'."
Why? There's nothing about a biological relationship that is in any way normative. 'Parents' in the normative sense of that word, ASSUME responsibility for their children, whether they are biologically related or not. It's that assumption that makes them obligated, not the simple fact that they're biologically entwined.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Ok, then why are people criminally charged for leaving new born infants in dumpsters?
Such a person is not in any meaningful way assuming responsibility for the child, and is in fact doing everything they can to abdicate it.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@mordinvan Because there is a simple alternative: give it up for adoption. The baby doesn't have to use your body against your will, but a fetus does. World of difference.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
This first tweek of your is more analogous to knowing you're going to a party, and got drunk, and then were rapped. As you took part in an action, which in no way directly related to the act of being hooked up to a musician, or even forcing the musician into a state of dependency in the first place.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@mordinvan "is more analogous to knowing you're going to a party..."
Exactly: you knew there was a chance you would be raped if you went to the party. You went anyway. Are you responsible for being raped? Of course not. The fact that you choose to do something which you knew might lead to it happening doesn't mean you are responsible.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Your tweeks are terrible as well..
You know you might be kidnapped and subjected to medical experimentation? You still have no responsibility for the musician needing you help in the first place. Kidnap is still a crime, as the the assault, and administration of drugs needed to perform the procedure. However when a woman has sex(nonrape only), she knowingly and willingly allows an action which may cause pregnancy.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@mordinvan "she knowingly and willingly allows an action which may cause pregnancy."
And you knowingly and willingly allowed an action that caused you to be hooked up to a violinist. The fact that your actually being hooked up was a crime is neither here nor there: you could have avoided it by not going out, but you chose not to.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Your analogy is really falling apart here. You're equating the biological process of getting pregnant with something that makes rape looks loving and tender. You left your house, slight difference between that and sex don't you think? Sex has always been associated with pregnancy, and going to concerts has rarely if even been associated with medical experimentation.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@mordinvan "Sex has always been associated with pregnancy, and going to concerts has rarely if even been associated with medical experimentation."
First off, it's not an experiment. Experiments are when you try to learn something. This is a life saving procedure.
Second, it makes no difference what has 'always' or 'rarely' been the case. What matters is what IS the case. And in this case we KNOW that people are being kidnapped, but we go anyway.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
I am presently unaware of any standard life saving procedure which has people sharing circulatory systems for extended periods of time. If you can cite one I'd love to hear it, but otherwise I'm calling this experimental.
We go, because presumably the cops are working to stop the problem. I'm unware of swat teams busting into people's houses just to hose out a woman's pussy out with spermicide, but they will break into an opera house to stop human trafficking.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@mordinvan "You still have no responsibility for the musician needing you help in the first place"
You're assuming the woman has responsibility for the fetus needing her in the first place. That's begging the question.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
No its not. Sex leads to pregnancy, opera does not lead to irrecoverable kidney failure in someone else.
If you think it does, please consult a doctor, and they will confirm the 2 are not in any way linked.
Your violinist case would be equivalent to a woman being drugged, and forcibly impregnated with someone else's fetus, which most of us would say is far worse then normal rape, as its even stranger, and harder to comprehend.
mordinvan 1 year ago
There is a very potent difference between the violinist, and a fetus however. The violinist case doesn't have you willingly take an action knowing there is a risk that you destroy the violinists kidney's and thereby make them in need of life support, with you as the only possible source of that support given present medical technologies.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@mordinvan Well that's an easy fix. Let's say before you go out to the symphony, you read a story about how people are being kidnapped and hooked up to musicians. You realize that if you go out, there's a chance you might be hooked up to a famous musician. You decide to go out anyway, and sure enough you're kidnapped and hooked up. Are you now obliged to stay hooked up to the violinist?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
That does not address my objection. My objection is at no part in your scenario does my going there MAKE him dependent upon my kidneys for any reason which could possibly be used to hold me legally accountable.
Come up with some scenario where the actors actions have ~1/600 chance of making the musicians kidney's fail, in a way which any reasonable person could see coming, and yet intentionally chooses to act in that fashion knowing the risks.
mordinvan 1 year ago
@mordinvan "My objection is at no part in your scenario does my going there MAKE him dependent upon my kidneys"
I think you mean to say 'it doesn't put him in a state where he needs to use someone else' body against their will' or some such. (Strictly speaking, going DOES 'make him dependent on your kidneys', since if you hadn't gone, he never would have been hooked up to you in the first place. But I get your point.) (cont'd)
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@mordinvan But either way, you still have a problem: the violinist exists PRIOR to your action, but the fetus does not. The only way the mother 'makes the fetus dependent upon her body' is by making the fetus exist in the first place. By acting to make the violinist dependent up on you, you're harming an existent being; by having sex there is no being to harm. It's only later that it becomes a being. So the scenario you're asking for would have to be something like this: (cont'd)
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@mordinvan A mother decides to have a baby, knowing that she has a genetic defect, which might lead to her child having kidney failure. The child is born, grows up, becomes a famous violinist, then his kidneys fail. Without asking, the society for music lovers hooks the mother up to her son, the violinist. They say 'hey, it's your fault he has this kidney problem in the first place. You knew any offspring you have might have kidney problems, but you chose to have a kid anyway. (cont'd)
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@mordinvan So because you choose to have the kid in light of that possibility, you're morally obliged to let him use your body to save his life.' Let's further stipulate that while she is the biological mother, that she gave the child up for adoption, so he is still a stranger to her (as the fetus is a stranger to the mother).
This seems to meet all the criteria you set out, and capture the 'bringing into existence along with the dependency' condition. Do you think she's obligated to stay?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Yes
Without question, she created a defective human being, knowingly, and willingly.
Several more problems with this analogy however.
a) genetic problems, usually have a frequency no lower the 1/4 of rearing their head, making her 150 times as responsible as someone who simply had sex, as that's closer to the 1/600 figure I listed ( assuming birth contorl)
and b) what is it with kidneys? we had dialysis machines... go for the liver, we can't fix that yet.
mordinvan 1 year ago
Good video =)
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
All right. Suppose you find yourself in a building somewhere. There's an earthquake. The building collapses and you find yourself trapped deep underground in a narrow space. There's only one other survivor in view - a 3-year-old child who's pinned beneath some wreckage but otherwise unhurt.
Here's the situation. The 3-year-old is blocking the only way out. You can escape simply by killing the child and using some hand sharp-edged wreckage to dismember her body and then climb to safety.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (2) Now, maybe you can advance some sort of argument to justify doing this, or waiting, or waiting for the child to die of natural causes, or waiting for some period of time and *then* cutting up the child.
What I don't think it is possible to do, in any legitimate fashion, though -- is to assert that the *child* is in any meaningful sense *holding you hostage.*
The child has made no choice of any kind. She is not in any conceivable sense of the term a moral agent.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (3) Any more than if it were a grown man or woman in coma. The only moral agent -- the only individual in a position to make a moral choice is you.
As far as I can see the only appropriate characterization of this situation is that the *circumstances* have placed you in a position where your choices are limited -- not the child. The child bears no responsibility and to frame the argument in that sense --
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (4) -- in the sense of one person *being used* by another, when one of the parties has no awareness even of her own existence, strikes me as absurd.
You have been placed in a circumstance where you must weigh conflicting moral obligations -- the fetus, by virtue of having no capacity to choose, has no moral standing in the situation -- any more than the child whose been thrust into the gap in the tunnel by the earthquake.
Only *you* get to choose what to do.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (4) You must weigh your rights in the matter -- rights to personal autonomy, obligations to others, et al -- and your obligations to another person (presuming, for the sake of argument that one considers a fetus to be a person).
And one *does* have an obligation to other persons -- even to complete strangers and even greater obligation to one's own offspring.
There are obligations to preserve the lives of others -- and an even greater obligation to refrain from taking it.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod there are a number of relevant dissimilarities between the scenario you laid out and the case of the famous violinist. My biggest question is: if I don't kill the child will help be arriving at some point to save us both? That would make this a lot more analogous. And, is this time frame anything like 9 months? Does a few hours or a few days amount to 9 months? Also, the main point above was about a person who would die without support, not one who might be impeding your survival.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 The world is full of people who are in dire violinist-like circumstances but whose circumstances place no immediate obligation upon me to do anything about it.
The heart of the argument is that a person has no right to "impose upon me" irrespective of their circumstances. That is, to use me for their ends without my permission. Thus, the violinist, even though he'd die without me, or likewise, the fetus, has no right to use me, without my permission.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (2) That argument holds irrespective of whether I am in a life or death situation, am being significantly inconvenienced, or even inconvenienced at all. Someone doesn't have the right to use me in any way, without my permission.
My point is that neither the comatose violinist, nor the fetus, is "using" anyone, because implicit in the notion of 'using" is the idea of intent.
Entities that are lacking consciousness lack intent.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (3) It makes no more sense to speak of the "right" of an unconscious person to use somebody as it does to talk of the rights of a fungus infection to grow between our toes or of useful bacteria to grow in our gut. It's not as if one has more "right" to be where it is because it's "useful" -- neither kind of lifeform has any choice in the matter - any more than a fetus or an unconscious violinist.
And that's irrespective of whether it causes a little harm, a lot, or none.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) That is, there is certainly an ethical basis on which you can decide what to do about an athlete's foot infection, or about a comatose violinist, whether connected to you or not, or about a fetus within your body, starting with the operating assumption that the fetus is a person, or not.
But I simply don't see how one can construct an ethical model that is based on the idea of treating a non-conscious operator as if it were a conscious operator "using" another conscious operator.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (4) Regarding the specific example -- one can obviously draw major dissimilarities between the "violinist" example and the specific situation of pregnancy as well -- pregnancy, under normal circumstances, doesn't restrict the pregnant woman from going about her normal life and doing what she normally does for the majority of her pregnancy.
But that's not the issue in question -- the question is - should anybody be able to attach themselves to your body against your will?
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (5) Well, if the question is -- should *I* be able to intentionally attach myself to your body against your will - no. Should I be able to attach somebody else to your body against your will - no.
But if I hook up, say, my newborn baby to your body against your will *I* have done something wrong, but my newborn has not.
If I lock you in a room and wire the door so that if you open it, it sets off a hand grenade and blows up a baby outside, that makes *me* a nasty person.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) And certainly, you can assert that you have no right to be kept in that room. But that doesn't somehow mean that the *baby* is guilty of keeping you in that room because you have to kill the baby to leave the room.
Neither does the fact of your imprisonment, unjust though it may be change the fact that you have a legitimate moral obligation to that baby.
If it was life and death, maybe you'd open the door. But if you knew you were going to go free in a few months, maybe not.
prodprod 1 year ago
Am I the only one who thinks that unhooking from the violinist is morally reprehensible? You are not responsible for what the society did to put you in this situation, but you are responsible for what you do once you are in the situation, and unhooking from the violinist would be killing him through an act of your own volition. Where's the problem?
derfos666 1 year ago
@derfos666 Just to clarify, the question isn't whether or not unhooking yourself is morally reprehensible, it's are you morally OBLIGATED to keep yourself hooked up. Nobody thinks abortions are awesome...
Hammerfly86 1 year ago
I am still trying to understand this analogy. It seems to me that the woman is engaging in an activity that will potentially result in a child and by taking such an action she is morally responsible for the child that results. For the analogy that seems like you go to a concert where there is a draw to see which seat is responsible for the duties of providing short term support. You can enjoy thousands of concerts but never be selected but if you are, are you then obligated to fulfill the duty?
Benwoodruff 1 year ago
The last point SR made was interesting about the woman injected with a fetus who isn't biologically connected to her in any way. Abortion is always wrong, but the question is: to what degree? The term applicable here is "mitigating circumstance". Rape would also, quite obviously, fall into this category. If a woman is raped, is it date rape or random rape, in a felonous manner? How violent is it? If date rape, did she lead him on or shut hum down? Abortion is always wrong. But, to what degree?
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
The incarnation of this thought experiment I read was quite a bit different. In it, you are in the position of a doctor who is at a holiday party at the hospital. You have too much to drink, take the elevator down to a different floor and pass out in an empty bed. The next morning you wake up and are told the situation, except that rather than being permanently conjoined, it's for 9 months.
LtotheoganX 1 year ago
@LtotheoganX That's an interesting version. It does kind of build in the idea that you have done something to put yourself at risk, which can help.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
My initial analogy of the condoms was intended to counter your arguement regaurding consentual sex. If a woman (without a hystorectomy, of course) consents to the sex, then both she and the male acknowledge the possibility that the woman will become pregnent. Therefore, she has conseneted to the possibility of becoming pregnent and the possible creation of a fetus. This arguement does not attack nor defend pro choice or pro life, merely your definition.
Axen901 1 year ago
A hysterectomy costs a pretty penny. Not everyone has the dough to scrape out for it and on a quick look-see of the price, it seems to cost overall just under 10K. So no, I don't consider not buying one just cause to blame rape on the woman, due to the possibility she may not be capable of affording it. However she could have taken measures to prevent said rape, especially if there is potential risk in the area she is venturing.
Axen901 1 year ago
@Axen901 So shelling out 10K is too high a burden to place on a woman, but asking her to abstain from sex, potentially for her whole life, is not? Is a lifetime of sexual autonomy worth less in your mind than 10K?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Giggity. No, I was implying that it may not be possible for every woman to get a hystorectomy and therefore remove all blame of the pregnancy from their selves. Therefore it is not the best birth control as it would seem I was implying to you.
Axen901 1 year ago
If a woman goes to the opera alone, assuming that she to is warned about the possible kidnapping, then she too is responsible in the same respect as the couple with a condom.
Axen901 1 year ago
@Axen901 So by that same logic, if a woman gets raped, she is obliged to keep the baby, since she is responsible for not taking the right precautions (i.e.-getting a hysterectomy) to make sure that any rape did not lead to a pregnancy, correct?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed She is obligated to keep the baby because that baby is a valuable human being no less valuable then you and me and would therefor amount to killing an innocent human being. Why would the child have to pay for the crime of his father? Suppose we have a 3 year old girl who is conceived of rape standing right in front of you, would we give the mother the right to kill her because the girl was conceived of rape?
GGDFan777 1 year ago
No of course not, so you would have to say that there is a morally significant difference between the unborn and born. So that's the only relevant question before us, what is the unborn? I would maintain that there are good scientific reasons for thinking unborn is a human being from the moment of conception and there are no non-arbitrary morally significant differences between the unborn and you and me.
GGDFan777 1 year ago
In response to your first argument, according to a popular sitcom from the early 00's, the best birth control is "Don't do it". Consentual sex leaves both parties responsible for the pregnancy, the woman included, even if they use safe sex. Condoms warn that there is a slight chance of not working, thus safe sex has risks.
Axen901 1 year ago
@Axen901 Actually, the best birth control is a hysterectomy. Abstinence is no guarantee, since you can always be raped. Each year, thousands of women who are practicing abstinence are raped and get pregnant, but no woman who's had a hysterectomy has ever gotten pregnant. Do you think women are obliged to either get a hysterectomy or keep a pregnancy if they get raped?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
I think the idea of people knowing that some people that go to the opera get abducted and hooked up to violinists is not analogous. A better example would be that some people really want to be hooked up to violinists, and others just like the opera. When you go to the opera though, it is assumed that you want to be hooked up. When you are chosen, you are presumed to desire the result, and in that sense, simply changing your mind is not enough to justify killing the violinist...
poduck2 2 years ago
Now, the presumption comes because some people want to be hooked up, while the rest know that there is a good possibility of it. Therefore, while the act of going to the opera is essentially a gamble, it is one that people go into knowing the possibilities. In that sense, your presumption of willingness is depended upon by the violinist, and you have relinquished your presumption of autonomy and therefore the greater good is more appropriate. Your discomfort is not as valuable as a life.
poduck2 2 years ago
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that life begins at conception, in the manner we perceive it, but that doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, youtube's short reply space has already made my argument hacked up. Suffice it to say, that a really good argument can be made for protecting a fetus, in any stage of development, from murder, and I can do so without suggesting that at any time the fetus is a viable human being.
poduck2 2 years ago
The one overwhelming argument for legal abortion is that the alternative is worse. This is the reason it was legalized in the UK.
The abortion rate doesn't significantly change whether legal or illegal. Legal or illegal abortions terminate the foetus. But backstreet abortionists are more likely to kill the mothers or make them infertile.
It then comes down to harm reduction.
bdf2718 2 years ago
Actually, the vast majority of abortions are spontaneous. Something like 70% of conceptuses don't get carried to term.
Any religious opposition to abortion has to deal with the fact that God is the biggest abortionist in history.
bdf2718 2 years ago
Well, that assumes that we can lay 'spontaneous' events at God's doorstep. I would agree we can, but I suspect a religious person would try to avoid that conclusion.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
A religious person would have to believe in evolution to shift the responsibility from God. And once you go down that road, God become irrelevant.
What interests me is why God aborts them. Because they're so good they ought to go straight to heaven? Or so evil straight to hell? Whatever happened to all souls having an equal chance.
And if God didn't abort Hitler, the evil souls must be incredibly evil.
bdf2718 2 years ago
@sisyphus- for the 3rd objection...would placing the fetus in a small corner be more human than killing it and putting it out of it's misery. Remember the move last of the Mohicans where the one of the guys were being burned to death,slowly, by a tribe, and his frined shot him with one shot to end "the pain" Isn't a quick painless death less brutal tahn a alow one?
2nd question why aren't abortions performed this way? It would definitely shutt he pro-life/anti-choice agenda them up big time.
SoilderofScience 2 years ago
please respond=-)...
SoilderofScience 2 years ago
Don't agree you've answered the 'responsibility objection'.
The crucial point is, that in the case of abortion, the decision to have sex not only creates the rship of dependence but the very needs of the dependant.
In the new experiment, the needs of the violinist were preexisting. The level of culpability for the creating the relationship of dependence may be the same, but fundementally, the decision to attend the opera did not create the violinist's need for sustenance.
BalmainBoy 2 years ago
I suppose you're right that you've pointed to a disanalogy there, but I don't see how that difference can possibly bear the moral weight you want it to.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Comment removed
BalmainBoy 2 years ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
If you've made a decision with the knowledge that it may place person x in a position where they need resource y to survive, and this in fact occurs, surely there is an ethical duty to provide person x with resource y?
PS: I should note you did an excellent job of dismantling the remainder of the argument. I'm actually pro choice myself, I've just never placed much credence upon this thought experiment, except in the case of sexual assault.
BalmainBoy 2 years ago
There is certainly a prima facie duty to provide them with resource y, but there are many circumstances in which that prima facie duty can be overridden. Particularly, (a) when the likelihood of my action causing that need is very small, (b) when giving Y comes at a particularly high cost to me, (c) when the only way to avoid them needing Y is to make an unreasonable sacrifice, etc. All of these (and more) hold in (most) cases of pregnancy due to voluntary sex.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
I see some force from point c). I remain unconvinced though.
Assuming your contentions, does the character of abortion then change where pregnancy followed a failure to use adequate birth control? After, such an example significantly alters the likelihood and the level of sacrifice (having to use birth control during sex).
BalmainBoy 2 years ago
I certainly would say that someone who fails to use birth control when it is readily available are being more irresponsible and carry a heavier burden accordingly. But it is still not so heavy as to override the woman's right to control her body.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
I don't suggest it overrides the right of a woman to choose. That's why I'm pro-choice.
More fundamentally, I'm suggesting that a choice to abort is unethical, or at least it violates my own ethical standpoint. Where you say points a, b and c outweigh the responsibility of the woman, I do not agree. It's extraordinarily subjective and probably the main reason I have a problem with the violinist thought experiment; it seeks to eviscerate those shades of grey.
BalmainBoy 2 years ago
i think you could go even farther concerning the responsibility objection.
Say you get in a car crash with the violinist, (a crash that is your fault) and by some bizarre occurrence, only his kidneys are damaged, causing his condition. Now that you are directly responsible for the violinist needing to use your body to survive, are you obliged to stay connected? I still think no.
xanderthegreatt 2 years ago
Hi Sisypus. First of, let me say, that I think you presented your argument (rebutal) in a respectful manner, so Kudos to you for that. It's hard no tto let emotion drive the thought process when discussing something as controversial as abortion. I must say, though, that I don't agree w/your stance; Thompson's original argument was actually a bit irresponsible, because she viewed the mother as a NON-ACTIVE participant. In effect, she was almost making that pregnancy akin to rape. This is not the
BarnacleBillsBastard 2 years ago
not the case. In rape, sex is forced upon a woman. She is not an active participant in the sexual act. When a woman willfully & freely has sex, she makes herself an active participant in the ACT that could lead to pregnancy (and should be responsible for the consequences). If a person runs outside & starts shooting his gun up in the air (even in a drunken state), he is still responsible if that bullet comes down & harms someone. The opera analogy (you presented) isn't a good example, b/c those
BarnacleBillsBastard 2 years ago
Hey BBB. Thanks for the compliment, and your thoughts.
Strictly speaking, all Thompson meant the violinist analogy to do originally was prove that an absolute prohibition on abortion was untenable. The violinist does appear to be most analogous to pregnancy due to rape, but even if all she does is prove that abortion in such circumstances is permissible, that's no small thing.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
I agree there.
BarnacleBillsBastard 2 years ago
opera-goers still did not participate in the act that got them kidnapped. If I get on a subway (knowing that I could be mugged), it still would not make me responsible for that mugging. I did not intend to be mugged, true, but I didn't participate in my mugging either (if I walked up to the kidnappers and said "please kidnap me" and tied rope around my own wrists..then I would share a responsibility there. That's the only argument that could be made in the opera analogy).
BarnacleBillsBastard 2 years ago
But I think the violinist proves more than that. There is a difference between consenting to sex and consenting to pregnancy, and the prior does not entail the later. Even if she is 'responsible' in the sense that her decisions led to her being pregnant, it is not the case that she, at any point, consented to having her body used by the fetus. If she did not consent, then the fetus has no right to use her body against her will.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Right, but that goes back to the man with the gun. When you participate in an act, you know that (regardless of intention) you are responsible for any consequence that may arise from it; You didn't HAVE to consent to the injury or harm to that person. The fact is, that you made it happen. We must also remember, that the mother is the one that (through her actions..wanted or not) created the fetus that occupies her womb. It's not the same as an outside invader.
BarnacleBillsBastard 2 years ago
Awesome video!!!
richaldeano 2 years ago
The abortion of a fetus debacle.
I think this argument can only stem really from two premises.
One: Life is sacred, humanity is sacred because of it's intrinsic value.
Two: Life is not sacred, has no intrinsic value, only the subject value we place on life.
I think for the latter premise the secularist is more obligated to take this stance as a matter of course. As there is really no external moral principle to objectify the former position. At least I can't think of one.
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
That we have intrinsic value is either based off ideology or a blatant appeal to emotion.
If the fetus doesn't care (or is incapable of caring), why should I?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
I guess the more pertinent question would be, is it morally acceptable to make that decision for the fetus? Which most agree is a viable human being, at the fetal stage.
Another question could be, if by aborting fetuses could we be implicitly redistributing our normative, moral value system for the worse.
Should there be an objective precedent on this issue, or is it relative? From the more secularistic premise, I don't think one can justify not aborting using objective moral principles.
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
I think it is. A vegetable cannot make decisions for him/herself, so a family member/significant other must make decisions for them. It is the same for a fetus. They cannot make decisions (or, in most cases, are INCAPABLE of doing so), so it is well within a mothers right to make decisions for them.
I think it all depends on what our definition of "life" is. Sure, by normal usage, fetuses are alive. But so are vegetables. Should we keep them around forever?
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Good analogy, but I think the obvious flaw with it is that an individual in a permanent vegetative state is clinically brain, whereas the fetus is not brain dead; instead the fetus is in an early developmental stage.
In the case of the fetus there is biological potentiality that predisposes growth in it. Just like we don't condemn the child at three to death because he has not developed fully cognitively, why condemn the fetus to death?
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
The problem is that professionals are not always accurate in deeming a vegetative state permanent or temporary. There have been some who were supposed to be permanent and came out, and some who were supposed to be temporary and never came out.
By basing your pro-life position off of potentiality, you must concede that vegetables always have the potential to recover. You must also concede that inmates on death row may be innocent, and as such should not be put to death.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Excellent points. = D
The cases you mentioned strengthen your argument definitely, but I think they also shift vital focus. The emphasis in the vegetables case is wether his/her life is STILL relevant, as a result of a significantly impaired, damaged brain.
Whereas the abortion of a fetus dilemma ultimately comes down to should we give this developing human being a chance to develop, or kill it. If so, whose to say that in a decade or so we wont be doing the same to newborns.
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
Lover180, you suggest we shouldn't kill fetuses, because that could lead to the slippery slope of killing newborns.
However, this argument only works if you can show that we shouldn't be killing newborns in "a decade or so". I don't think you can.
To me this argument sounds like "if we let black men vote, whose to say that in a decade or so, we won't be doing the same to women?" And so it was, 50 years later, we did, and look back appalled. You can't judge the future from today's perspective.
angelwhite 2 years ago
Good analogy, except it uses a blatantly juxtaposed comparison. The reason being, the normative value of human life is accepted as hierarchically more important than everything else, i.e., voting, etc. Plus the giving and taking aspect.
If in ten years we are killing newborns, I would think it the most horrific, and appalling time in human history. As I personally believe that to take life, especially innocent life is wrong, objectively. I think many others, including yourself feel the same way.
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
Lover180 I think your issue with my analogy doesn't work, you are judging them with today's moral opinions, but they would have looked at you just as appalled as you look at them.
You rely on everyone feeling that killing newborns is so obviously wrong that it can be used as a premise to new action. Yet this subjective belief has not always held, eugenically oriented societies have killed newborns that were found lacking, The Biblical god has commanded the killing of infants 1 Sam 15:2-3
angelwhite 2 years ago
Interesting. I'm not familiar with the contextual account behind the scripture you gave me, but I will look into it. = D
However, I am aware that under the mosaic law the Israelites, under special circumstances, were sometimes commanded by God to exterminate pagan nations, but this was not a precedent for how God viewed, views, the unborn. And therefore can't be treated as such.
Exodus 21: 22, 23, i.e., a mosaic law code states the precedent, and implies how God views the unborn
Cont.
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
As far as Eugenics is concerned the practice is flawed, as there is really no moral criteria that justifies the practice. And it is something from which abuse almost naturally follows, often justified with pseudo-science, or conjecture, e.g., consider what happened under the Nazi regime.
If eugenics is ever sanctioned, we will be one step closer to a society whose normative values are redistributed for the worse. And natural rights will become prescribed rights, for specific demographics
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
I agree with your assessment on eugenics. It doesn't require us to call it "wrong". We can recognize it's consequences can be undesirable without needing dogma.
For infanticide, my point is that each action needs to be considered with respect to that time and society. If you are willing to look at context for the Biblical god commanding it, then you accept that morality changes. If objective morals are correct, then context is not relevant, but noone would ever judge actions in this manner.
angelwhite 2 years ago
"why condemn the fetus to death?
"just like we do not do it for a 3 year old"
fallacy,
1.- 3 year olds are not growing inside a body
2.embryos have absolutely no cognitive capabilities, in fact, teh cortex is not inplace until after the 22-24 week
aborted fetuses are not "condemn to death", they happened to die of not wanted inside the place they were growing
the owner of teh body has teh right to evict ann thing within her body
period
ZegatonZ 2 years ago
Well it's not necessarily a fallacy Zegatonz
My logic chain placed emphasis on the biological potentiality that predisposes the probable growth in the fetus. The same potentiality that exists in the three year old, who is also far from fully developed cognitively, physically, etc.
My point being essentially, if we couldn't imagine killing the three year old, who ultimately DEPENDENT. Why would we kill the fetus who has the same developmental potentiality?
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
a three year old is viable but dependent, an embryos is not viable but dependable
a 3 year old does not need a particular body to stay alive and develop, an embryos does
an embryo has NO COGNITIVE CAPABILITIES an embryo is a "probable" person, a 3 year old is not
if a woman had 6 year old inside of her,, or a 6 week embryo she has the right to remove them
ZegatonZ 2 years ago
Thank you for using common sense.....I'm afraid it's become pretty scarce. ;)
emmelawrence 2 years ago
I think strategically appealing to people in permanently vegetative states is not the best move. May pro-life people will say YES, you should keep them around until they die a natural death. A better point, IMO, is a tumor. It's alive, biologically human and genetically distinct; does it have a 'right to life?' Or skin cells--they have the potential to become an adult human-being (if they're cloned), do they have a right to life?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
One must also take into account the economic element. What does a low income mother do when the condom unknowingly breaks? What does the family do when the mother has triplets, or quadruplets, or octuplets?
Emotional appeal plays its part in all aspects of society; but there comes a point where it is just not financially possible.
One should note how those that extremely pro-life are also those who are disinclined to adopt.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
"I was dead for billions of years before I was alive and I wasn't inconvenienced in the slightest."
-Mark Twain
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Twain was channeling Lucretius when he said that (it's called the 'symmetry argument' against the fear of death.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Well I knew it didn't fit completely, but what I was trying to say is that if you're not aware than you don't care what happens to you, much less are capable of even doing so.
Basically, only in hindsight are we glad to be alive.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Secular ethics can be completely objective. Kant's moral philosophy, for example, is objective and secular (even though Kant himself believed in God, his ethics wasn't based on that belief). Utilitarianism is another objective, secular moral theory.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Exactly. Society must have some form of objective morality in order to function. It may not be objective in the sense that a supreme being dictates it, but that the majority agree.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Well, once "the majority" is mentioned morality is once again relative to society, and is no longer objective outside society.
There are numerous examples in history where gross atrocities were committed because the premiere society didn't view such actions as morally wrong.
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
Exactly. That is the whole point behind the term. In a secular society, opinions differ with regard to ethical dilemmas; but an all-encompassing rule of law must be applied to all; blind justice, if you will.
This does lead to ethical dilemmas to outsiders. Spartans used to have sex with little boys. They thought it morally sound. Obviously you and I don't. It always depends on the point of view.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Greywyn7, I think most religionists, and also myself, would not consider that to be objective, but merely subjective to a larger group of peoople. A thing can only be objectively true if it is true outside the mind, regardless of perception.
I am quite confident that all morality, everywhere, to everyone, in every case, has and always will be subjective.
angelwhite 2 years ago
Morality (dictated by personal opinion, experience, etc) is subjective to people. However, when discussing something like a rule of law, a theist (not religionist =D) believes the objective law to be gods word. In Christianity's case, this would be the Ten Commandments, among others.
Regardless of the existence of god, however, personal morality will always be subjective. Assuming what we believe to be free will isn't taken from us, that is.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
I confess I'm only superficially familiar with secular ethics. I will definitely look more into secular philosophies.
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
Well, other people might care, for one. For another, surely there are some things that we ought to value for their own sake, even if they're not capable of 'valuing' themselves. If I'm the last person on earth and I have the Mona Lisa I should value it, even if it doesn't suit my own personal aesthetic tastes. But this is a much more complicated issue.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
"...surely there are some things that we ought to value for their own sake, even if they're not capable of 'valuing' themselves"
Well, once you begin saying phrasing things this way, things take on a distinct subjective tone. Maybe I don't feel the same way you do. Let's say I have my own philosophy.
Would one be right and one wrong, objectively? Or is it merely vantage point?
Thank you for your patience by the way. You're one of the few non-stuck up intellectuals I watch on here.
= D
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
I think you're grossly over simplifying things. There can be versions of the 'intrinsic value' thesis that don't appeal to the idea of the sanctity of human life ('sanctity' is a particularly religious form of that thesis.) Also, there are forms of the 'objective value' thesis that appeal neither to intrinsic value, nor sanctity. And in either case, both of your premises are untenable on their face and can easily be shown to lead to implausible conclusions.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Great points, and maybe I am over simplifying, but if so it is in the vein of the most essential--in my opinion--debate which ultimately precedes this one. The God debate.
I'd be interested to learn more about these other forms of the objective value thesis that don't appeal to intrinsic value, or sanctity. And the versions of the versions of the intrinsic value thesis which don't appeal to sanctity. I was under the impression that they were very much related.
= D
Lover180backflip 2 years ago
No matter how you turn up and down on the pregnancy, only half is biologically from the mother... the other half is from a stranger! (unless it's a cousin, eeeew, not smart!)
Paxmax 2 years ago
Another good vid, thanks.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
Thanks for saying so.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
The permission for the baby to use the womans uterus is granted by the decision of the woman to have sex. As mammals and as human beings, the act of sex is designed to create new life. This is not to say that sex was meant to be used always as a means of procreation, but the possibility of creating a new life IS there every time we have sex.
She invited the baby into her womb.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
The woman might attempt to deny this fact of nature, but nevertheless, the act of sex is allowing the possibility of pregnancy (even? if not intended), and that in itself, is giving the baby (another person), permission to use her body or organs. Since women are intelligent human beings (and thus realize this), if a new life should be created, she does not then have the right to kill that new, separate, living person.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
The killing of children is NOT a religious issue but a human rights issue& it is as a "human rights issue" that this battle must be fought.Along with being the organization that is 100% responsible for killing these human beings the American Medical Association is exploiting ALL women by claiming that all of the killing that has taken place so far & all of the killing that will continue to take place into the future is a woman's fault,or as they call it a "woman's choice".
angelshoulders 2 years ago
People say \"If it jeapordizes the woman's health\" But if you read the fine print, you'll learn that the governments defines the woman's health as mental health, physical health, spiritual health, emotional health, etc.
So If she simply sees the baby as an inconvenience, she could claim that it will effect her \"mental health\" and have a partial birth aborition without any further questions.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
From single cell organisms to humans,all exist in one of 2 states,alive or deceased.
from the moment of conception there is life,why is it not murder when a child in the womb,which is alive is killed.
yet people protest the execution of a murderer,yet the baby hasn't done anything wrong and it's o.k to execute him/her..i don't understand
angelshoulders 2 years ago
A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.) Key phrase- "another species". The Embryo/fetus? is always human.
Google "Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite"
for why your position is inaccurate, educate yourself. The site you want is hosted by libertarians for life
angelshoulders 2 years ago
Now you think that the dictionary can win a moral debate. I'll bet you I can find a definition of 'parasite' that does not use the phrase 'another species' or the equivalent. You've proven you can cherry-pick with the best of them. Now try actually making an argument.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Sis...That point is entirely up to you, you are the one commenting that they exist, come forth with some proof! If you want to make empty claims,than I suggest you do your research to back up what you say.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
You're missing the point: you CANNOT settle a debate like this SIMPLY by pointing to a dictionary. If I did find such a definition would you concede that the fetus is a parasite? Of course you wouldn't, nor should you be, because how we define terms does not settle substantive moral issues.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
There is life BEFORE conception: eggs and sperm are alive. Why aren't you concerned about their rights, if 'being alive' is all that matters?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
So you don't think mental health qualifies as a legitimate health issue? Hope you never need a psychiatrist.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Mental health does qualify as a health issue,I assure.What I am saying is that these women will use any 'excuse'or'reason they can dig up to justify killing their 'little inconveniences'. SHAME!!
angelshoulders 2 years ago
You clearly have no grasp at all on the psychology of a woman who chooses to have an abortion. Women don't get abortions because they think a baby would be 'inconvenient.' I've seen many of those 'execution' orders your speak of and I have never once seen a woman put 'for convenience' as her reason for electing the procedure.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
You are pro-death,you not only condone it,you support&defend abortion.You even encourage a mother hiring a hit man to forcibly enter her womb with the sole intention of dismembering,tearing,ripping her little baby into pieces.Then with his cold,hard tools of his trade,suctioning out the tiny body parts into a stainless steel colander to be reassembled.FOR MONEY!When you say pro-choice,you are pro-death.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
I do not argue this issue from a moral view point but a human rights stance. You need to reread the statements. I am talking about a law that allows a mother to kill the very baby she helped,the baby who had no way of avoiding his/her circumstances.I'm talking about murder.Perhaps the govt. needs to read your book..all laws are based on morals.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
All laws are NOT based on morals. Do you think it's 'immoral' to drive on the left side of the road? If so then England, Japan and Australia are a bunch of seriously immoral people.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
The fetus does not have the right to be born, it does not have the right to use anothers body without permission.
Bumblybee256 2 years ago
How on earth can we consider & support our own mother killing us because we were the product of rape? Does this mean anyone is superior to someone who is the product of rape? I cannot exchange one tragic event with one ten times worse!
Also, RAPE IS HORRIBLE. The solution to rape is to stop it from happening not let it go unpunished. The act is inhuman and the penalty under law isn't severe enough.Rapists need to know that there is no room for their existence in society
angelshoulders 2 years ago
1. It's not your mother, the fetus whose mother it would would never even know.
2. Because she has the right to autonomy and what YOU suggest is the continuation of the rape, by forcing her to stay pregnant you condone the use of her body against her will by another after the rapist.
3. No it doesn't, I never said the fetsu was innately bad. This is about women's rights
4. I agree, but abortion needs to be available.
Bumblybee256 2 years ago
Bumbly...The govt.has made this issue a public issue.I would no more sit by knowing the neighbor was abusing his neices than sit by knowing women are killing their babies.I have a responsibility to speak up for these live.The mother&infants lives.Killing her baby only complicates her feelings of violation,it does nothing to solve the issue of a new life. TWO WRONGS NEVER MAKE A RIGHT!!
angelshoulders 2 years ago
The government cannot make private issues public issues- treating it as such does not make it so.
Don't put your own opinions onto other women- it may make some feel confused, for others it's utter relief. In any case the choice should still be available- it's not down to people like you who think you know best. The women involved know best.
Bumblybee256 2 years ago
You are anti-woman and anti-choice. You not only condone the oppression of women, you support and defend that oppression. You even encourage the government to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, under threat of legal punishment. When you say pro-life, you are anti-woman and anti-choice.
Now that round of name calling might have made us both feel better, but it didn't change anyone's mind. Can we stick to rational argument, please?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
"Thou shalt not kill" is just as much an imposition as being robbed at gunpoint. & if imposing our beliefs onto others is such a bad thing, why should we impose our beliefs onto an unborn child?Then I guess we shouldn't 'press' our 'beliefs' on the murderer or rapist....I WOULD NEVER MURDER OR RAPE, but it's not up to me to decide for others what they might want to do.....Right??? WRONG.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
one word lol....
blizzard7006 2 years ago
1. The 'hit man' is not forcibly entering her womb, she chose that.
2. Pro choice is not pro death. Pro-life is , however, anti choice and anti woman.
Bumblybee256 2 years ago
AND as for what the baby would think about his/her father? It is up to loving people to support the child and explain to him that his father gave us a great gift in him and that no matter who the man was or what his intentions were that we would never think of taking the boy's life for he did nothing wrong but make the world brighter.Because I have a rainbow at the end of my storm,pot of gold at the end of my rainbow.Silver lining around my clouds.I made out like a bandit!!
angelshoulders 2 years ago
The rapist did not give the woman a 'great gift', that is an incredibly insulting and inhuman thing to say, the child if born should know exactly what its father was.
Frankly the end of that message portrays you as mental.
Bumblybee256 2 years ago
So you're for human rights, just not women's rights. I guess that means you don't think women are human.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Mother's had their rights when they 'chose'to have sex,intended or not.Now that they have helped to create a new life,they have no right to end that life. 9 months is not a life sentence,it is a fraction of their life,considering the life expectancy of a woman in America
angelshoulders 2 years ago
A rapist only asks for 10 minutes to use a woman's body against her will, much less than 9 months. Do you think that women are not morally permitted to kill their rapists in self-defense? It's only 10 minuets, after all, how does that compare with a human life!
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
How on earth can we consider&support our own mother killing us because we were the product of rape?Does this mean anyone is superior to someone who is the product of rape?I cannot exchange one tragic event(rape)with one ten times worse(murder)!RAPE IS HORRIBLE.The solution to rape is to stop it from happening,not let it go unpunished.The act is inhuman & the penalty under law isn't severe enough.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
I agree with you: rapists should be punished. No argument here.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
In instance of rape the mother's CHOICE should be supported no matter what that choice is. The already conscious and living woman should be your concern, not the fertilised egg, if not i would question how your view women? as incubators?
Bumblybee256 2 years ago
The act of walking down the stree is allowing the possibility of getting hit by a car: does that mean that when you walk down the street you consent to getting hit by a car? You're intelligent, you realize that you might get hit, so if you are hit then you have no right to ask for medical help. You should have known better.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Sis...you cannot compare walking down the street with the taking of a baby's life. That child had no way of avoiding its circumstances.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
I'm not; I'm comparing walking down the street with choosing to have sex. Both are morally permissible actions that sometimes lead to undesired consequences. But consenting to the antecedent does NOT entail consenting to the consequence. If you disagree, than that means that when you walk down the street you consent to being hit by a car. That is ludicrous.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
How about this.You go to the bar,get drunk.Now you put the key in the ignition&drive home.On the way,you kill several ppl.Did you,by starting your car& driving drunk,agree to the possibility of killing these ppl??And if not,why should you be up on charges on man slaughter.You didn't intend to kill them.But by driving drunk,you consented to the possibility of killing.With pregnancy,she agreed to sex.The possibility of conception.Now, 9 months later, she must give birth,not kill.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
No, she didn't: she invited the man's penis into her vagina. That's like saying because you invited your next door neighbor over for coffee his son can break into your house at night and take whatever he wants.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Sis...does this ignorant woman know that when she invites a man's penis into her vagina that she could conceive a child. Were do you meet these women,do they live in caves??
angelshoulders 2 years ago
Again, what the woman KNOWS is irrelevant: all that matters is what she CONSENTS TO. She does NOT consent to letting another person use her body and she can kill to enforce that.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
She consented to letting a man use her body. She consented to a pregnancy by having sex. She consented to all of it. If she is mature enough to have sex, she is mature enough to have a baby.If I drive drunk,I consent to the possibility that I may kill someone or myself.I consented as soon as I put the key in the ignition.Just as she did when she put his penis in her vagina.This is a fact. This is life, get a clue.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
the maturity level of the woman doesn't matter, unprotected sex doesn't equal yes, to all women for pregnancy. because not all unprotected sex leads to pregnancy, it's just your very old, out-date, sexist opinion.
she has the right to have sex anyway she chooses, and if pregnancy happens, she has a right to abort it...she has the right not to be used by the embryo.