|
So my friend is driving his ex girlfiend up to DC for an abortion. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| astroboy |
To me robbing someone of "choice" is not a problem in itself. The problem is that in not giving someone a choice with regard to their own life you may be forcing them to undergo an experience that is contrary to their will.
A fetus has no will, it only has the potential to develop into something that has a will - a "reasonable creature in being".
If the choice involved is something like circumcision, this involves pre-emptively making a decision that will permanently place a reasonable creature in being into a condition that he may not have chosen for himself had he the choice. Here robbing the creature of choice has caused it to undergo an experience against its will, for this reason the removal of choice or free will is wrong in this case.
In killing a fetus you are not forcing any reasonable creature in being to undergo any experience, let alone one contrary to its will. |
|
|
| RJT |
lol - the text messages I was receiving earlier are even funnier now that my suspicions were confirmed! 
 |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Well actually that argument is flawed as well, because its illegal to commit suicide. So once you are born, you cannot legally choose not to go on with life. :wtf: |
That's because I'm not talking about the legal system, but morality.
In that case, I shall add that I don't condemn suicide, given the fact that it's something the one chooses to do against oneself.
| quote: | Originally posted by Ivand
would you bring a child to the world knowing that you dont have the resources to maintain it? |
Well, there are several solutions to this...
1) Pregnancy takes 9 months, and during this time you have the time to rethink your professional life and engage in a new career. You can't know how your life is going to be 9 months from now, so you can't simply assume you won't have the resources to maintain the child.
2) Depending on your family, you could count on the help of parents. That's up to them to decide whether they're going to take part on this.
...
n) As a last resort, you could even think of giving the child away to adoption. But, claiming that there are no other solutions means you're simply acting on bad faith. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
But, claiming that there are no other solutions means you're simply acting on bad faith. |
On this point I agree with you wholeheartedly |
|
|
| Demoted |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
lol - the text messages I was receiving earlier are even funnier now that my suspicions were confirmed!
|
an abortion clinic that looks like Apollo 11? Zounds! |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| I assume we are not discussing a late-term abortion here, so this question seems pertinent: Is a non-conscious arrangement of cells a moral patient? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
1) Pregnancy takes 9 months, and during this time you have the time to rethink your professional life and engage in a new career. You can't know how your life is going to be 9 months from now, so you can't simply assume you won't have the resources to maintain the child.
2) Depending on your family, you could count on the help of parents. That's up to them to decide whether they're going to take part on this.
|
But cases exist in which neither of those options, nor many of the other ones that could be offered, are feasible. For a single woman already on welfare, possibly with a drug addiction, cast out from anything resembling family, to be able to raise a child is overly optimistic -- especially in an America where the face of abject poverty is a single mother with two kids and two minimum-wage jobs.
Again, I'm not arguing that abortion is ever an ideal. But as a last resort, sometimes it is the only rational choice to be made. Now, the longer this decision takes, the less likely I am to support it under any circumstance. I believe that all abortions can and should be conducted within the first trimester, well before any scientist has been able to establish significant signs of life. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Demoted
an abortion clinic that looks like Apollo 11? Zounds! |
$49.95 at your local costco. Hear it makes great mulch as well. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
To me robbing someone of "choice" is not a problem in itself. The problem is that in not giving someone a choice with regard to their own life you may be forcing them to undergo an experience that is contrary to their will.
A fetus has no will, it only has the potential to develop into something that has a will - a "reasonable creature in being".
If the choice involved is something like circumcision, this involves pre-emptively making a decision that will permanently place a reasonable creature in being into a condition that he may not have chosen for himself had he the choice. Here robbing the creature of choice has caused it to undergo an experience against its will, for this reason the removal of choice or free will is wrong in this case.
In killing a fetus you are not forcing any reasonable creature in being to undergo any experience, let alone one contrary to its will. |
hhmm... the argument does seem sound, but I'm having some difficulty with the concept of a fetus having no will. Is the will to live a will? I've read reports on children trying to defend themselves from intra-uterine devices used for abortion, and I'm assuming that this is a pre-rational demonstration of a will to live.
My stance on this matter is that, given the fact that we don't have a indirect contact to the conscious of a fetus (through language, for example), I'd rather err on the safe side (i.e. that dodging from the devices is a way to "avoid harm").
ps.: By the way... is there a plural for the word "fetus"? I don't believe it's "feti" :p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I assume we are not discussing a late-term abortion here, so this question seems pertinent: Is a non-conscious arrangement of cells a moral patient? |
I agree, if we're going to have any sort of sensible debate about the morality of abortion, a timeframe has to be set up under which it can be discussed. First trimester is vastly different than immediately before delivery in terms of embryonic/fetal development. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
hhmm... the argument does seem sound, but I'm having some difficulty with the concept of a fetus having no will. Is the will to live a will? I've read reports on children trying to defend themselves from intra-uterine devices used for abortion, and I'm assuming that this is a pre-rational demonstration of a will to live.
My stance on this matter is that, given the fact that we don't have a indirect contact to the conscious of a fetus (through language, for example), I'd rather err on the safe side (i.e. that dodging from the devices is a way to "avoid harm").
ps.: By the way... is there a plural for the word "fetus"? I don't believe it's "feti" :p |
The one problem I have with astroboy's argument is that using the same logic, we should not give birth to children, as it "involves pre-emptively making a decision that will permanently place a reasonable creature in being into a condition that he may not have chosen for himself had he the choice"
Fetuses defending themselves? :stongue: Seems interesting. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
ps.: By the way... is there a plural for the word "fetus"? I don't believe it's "feti" :p |
Fetuses. |
|
|
|
|
