|
Aborting our way to pefect kids? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
That's a failure of law rather than a failure of logic or morality.
I have no problem with the law recognising that an assault which destroys the life of an unborn fetus is quantitatively "worse" than any other assault of the same nature, but this stems from the rights of the mother rather than the rights of the fetus. If a mother loses a fetus during the course of an assault that she would have otherwise carried through to nascency, then her "injuries" are far greater than those of a regular assualt and this should be reflected in the law. I support the rights of women to "choose" when it comes to pregancy and this support unreservedly runs both ways - removing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is abhorrent, but then so is removing her right to give birth. |
To me, even if that is not a failure of morals, it is a failure of logic. If you are going to say that in one instance, the forced termination of pregnancy constitutes homicide (the murder of a human) I can't see how who commits that forced termination has any relevance on the legality of the outcome. I don't understand the logic behind saying that in the aftermath of an outside attack, the fetus is considered a human and its death will be justified as murder, but if the mother would do the exact same thing, the fetus is no longer considered a human.
I just don't see how you can logically define the "human" status of a fetus by who kills it. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
To me, even if that is not a failure of morals, it is a failure of logic. If you are going to say that in one instance, the forced termination of pregnancy constitutes homicide (the murder of a human) I can't see how who commits that forced termination has any relevance on the legality of the outcome. I don't understand the logic behind saying that in the aftermath of an outside attack, the fetus is considered a human and its death will be justified as murder, but if the mother would do the exact same thing, the fetus is no longer considered a human.
I just don't see how you can logically define the \"human\" status of a fetus by who kills it. |
so, you therefore do not discriminate between suicide, euthanasia & murder then? ;) |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MehGoat
The idea that men can be held responsible for a child, but have no say in if the child is kept, appalls me. |
Don't you love double standards? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
so, you therefore do not discriminate between suicide, euthanasia & murder then? ;) |
none of the above have an effect on whether the 'victim' is a human being or not. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
With the phrase "conscious lump" I really fear that you're venturing into abstract philosophical territory. I have no ready answer for that... |
oh but you do:
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I'm running with:
- Human DNA (therefore it is "human")
- Biological independence (therefore it is a "being")
I'd say that just about covers everything? |
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
none of the above have an effect on whether the 'victim' is a human being or not. |
but the part of his argument i was concerned with was
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
an outside attack, the fetus is considered a human and its death will be justified as murder, but if the mother would do the exact same thing, the fetus is no longer considered a human. |
meaning, that he is arguing that there shouldnt be any difference regarding who carries out the 'outside attack' in terms of whether the act itself is classified as right or not.
edit: ie, its about consent. whats the difference between rape & sex? or euthanasia/abortion & murder? consent. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
To me, even if that is not a failure of morals, it is a failure of logic. If you are going to say that in one instance, the forced termination of pregnancy constitutes homicide (the murder of a human) I can't see how who commits that forced termination has any relevance on the legality of the outcome. I don't understand the logic behind saying that in the aftermath of an outside attack, the fetus is considered a human and its death will be justified as murder, but if the mother would do the exact same thing, the fetus is no longer considered a human.
I just don't see how you can logically define the "human" status of a fetus by who kills it. |
i dont think james means that in the case of an assault of a pregenent woman which causes a miscarriage the attacker should be charged with homicide necessarily, but that it should be a worse offense than if it was against a non pregnent woman, on the grounds that the attacker took away the woman's right to decide. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but the part of his argument i was concerned with was
meaning, that he is arguing that there shouldnt be any difference regarding who carries out the 'outside attack' in terms of whether the act itself is classified as right or not.
edit: ie, its about consent. whats the difference between rape & sex? or euthanasia/abortion & murder? consent. |
your point would stand if NeoPhono would not have stated that he is concerned with the logical aspect of it rather than the moral:
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
To me, even if that is not a failure of morals, it is a failure of logic |
:) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
but i dont see how it IS a failure of logic :conf:
if a sick person chooses to end their own life, it is euthanasia. if that life is taken from them, it is murder.
if a woman chooses to abort her child, it is an abortion. if someone kills that foetus against her will, it is murder.
wheres the logic flaw? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but i dont see how it IS a failure of logic :conf:
if a sick person chooses to end their own life, it is euthanasia. if that life is taken from them, it is murder.
if a woman chooses to abort her child, it is an abortion. if someone kills that foetus against her will, it is murder.
wheres the logic flaw? |
try changing 'euthanasia' & 'abortion' to mean 'not murder':
if a sick person chooses to end his life, it's not murder, if that life is taken from him, it is.
if a woman chooses to abort her child, it is not murder. if someone kills that foetus against her will, it is murder.
the discrepency is that in one situation, killing a fetus is looked upon as taking a life, and in another - it isn't. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
i understand what youre saying, i still dont see the problem however.
the same \'discrepancy\' as you call it, exists between euthanasia & murder. if you decide to cut off your own finger, you can. if someone cuts it off against your will, its grievous bodily harm. a finger is a part of you, just like a foetus. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Don't you love double standards? :rolleyes: |
+ 1 |
|
|
|
|
