|
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
it depends on what period of time you consider babies to have "moral status". according to christians it is when the baby is first concieved, i.e. sperm-fertilize-egg. perhaps it's when the fetus begins to develop human characteristics?
saying that kids thrown "into the system" will end up being dysfunctional (and therefore claiming it is ok to kill them) is a claim, opinion, whatever. not every child will become charles manson because they were put in foster care. based on this assumption, if you agree that fetuses have moral status at the moment of conception (which you don't) then you must agree that any kid of any age thrown into foster care can be killed morally (otherwise they might turn into a PSYCHO KILLER!!1)
i think what thomson is trying to say is it's NOT okay for a woman to knowingly have intercourse, fuck up and become pregnant, and then say "meh, i never wanted this" and kill it. that's irresponsibility a) for taking a risk such as intercourse, knowing full well the possible repercussions and b) for not taking care of their offspring/taking responsibility for their actions.
So no, thomson isn't saying "you must keep the baby no matter what", thomson is saying that if you know of the full consequences of your actions, you cannot abort. The violinist mimics the idea of rape- you never asked to get raped. you never asked to get plugged into a violinist. therefore you have the right to abort.
Now say you did something that gave you the RISK of having a violinist attached to you, and you knew that there might be a POSSIBILITY of having said violinist attached. IF a violinist became attached to you, it would be morally impermissible to detach yourself.
which goes back to my original point: abortion is wrong, except for in cases of self-defense, rape, and incest. |
I really think you are taking your own complete spin on Thomsons literature. She is pro-abortion, so however you manage to get a message suggesting she is anti-abortion is completely fabricated by your own opinion.
I think it is safe to say that any child put into the "system" will be dysfunctional on some level, whether it be socially, mentally, emotionally or whatever. Being brought up in foster homes your entire life takes a toll on a human being, and has been scientifically proven that a lack of interaction with the mother during infancy will cause irreversible consequences. Do some research of the affects on children and animals that have been brough up without a mother. It is actually very interesting.
Anyway, I digress.
It is very hard to make a point to someone who is religious, primarily because their beliefs are based off of what an old book says, and most religious people aren't willing to accept that all of what the bible says isn't necessarily true, or interpreted properly.
I am obviously not religious, but I was brought up in a very religious family, and so come from a very religious foundation. I know a thing or two about christianity. I don't think that God, all merciful and powerful as he is, would smite someone for not choosing to have a baby that was made without the intentions of ever wanting it. I believe God, of all entities, would be appreciative of the true intentions of an abortion, which is to avoid bringing a life into the world that cannot be properly sustained in love and care.
I understand your argument about knowing the risk of possibly "having a voilinist attach itself to you", and therefore making it your responsibility to accept those consequences. However, on the same turn, is it ok to accept those consequences, and then leave the violinist to suffer? Is it fair to let that violinist attach itself to you and then later abandon it for someone else to take care of it?
I don't like the whole "morally" correct stuff... I don't think there is anyone on this planet that has a moral high ground to make a judgement call on what is "moral" or not.
I think it all comes down to what you feel is right for you.
|
