Fantastic Pro-Abortion Arguments Obliterated

I haven't had a chance to listen to this all the way through - I honestly believe this wasn't good enough..and by good enough, I mean not clear enough - I'm going to break this down into like 6 videos that are seemingly unrelated...idk

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• abortion

[missysmithy25]

this is not a novel argument for pro-abortion. this is the Peter Singer argument. 

[AmanJohnX]

@missysmithy25 I'm gonna need an elaboration as I've never even heard of this guy....but hey, that would be a testament to reason...many of the things I've said, I've found out years later someone like Socrates said...when a person uses reason, they can possibly come to universal truths. but again, elaborate on Peter's argument.

[GhettoEnterprises]

I enjoyed your argument! And Peter Singer is an idiot!

[sweetkittytwine]

wow a lot of smart people making comments here. i would like to better understand some of what i am reading here. it has made me want to rethink some of my thoughts. i wrote a paper in college about euthanasia and had to support both pro and con . so i do understand the dangers of placing value of any living person. i support abortion in early term but i still say i do not think it is right , i also yes it is a human being but feel it is a choice i would not want to be without.

[missysmithy25]

6) the implementation of eugenic practices is more than probable and realistic in a society where the belief that absolute morality is non-existent. I know that I may be oversimplifying but ideas like these can lead to Nazi Germany all over again. In godless universe, anything and everything is permissible.

[missysmithy25]

5) His basis for his abortion argument presupposes that human life is not equal. Because it were equal both the woman and the unborn child would have equal rights and he would not believe that the assassination of an young baby is inferior to the assassination of a grown human being. This is a slippery slope because it begs the question for disabled people or those with lower IQ's. And although I accept Darwinian theory eugenics is logical consequence of it and.....

[missysmithy25]

4) They would ask, 'how did you get from an absolute and objective moral law to an moral law giver?' Why is a moral law giver necessary?' Maybe you can make a video on this as it is an controversial topic.

On other note, Singers opinion on the inequality of the life of a baby in comparison to a grown human is a very very dangerous assertion, in my opinion. The minute an individual asserts this, it opens to the door to eugenics.

[missysmithy25]

2) that the rights of the mother supersedes the rights of the unborn child. Because of this he concludes that abortion is morally permissible. Singer also contends that killing a baby is never equivalent to killing a grown human being. This is because a baby lacks the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness''

[missysmithy25]

Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher and a professor who mainly teaches ethics at Princeton University. He is also a staunch atheist. The question as to whether the fetus is a human being is traditionally the bone of contention for the abortion argument. Singer on the other hand believes that the fetus is a living human being, however he denies that it is necessarily wrong to take the life of an innocent human. For Singer this purely a utilitarian based calculation as he also maintains