Can raped girls abort?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc_Keele said:
Your argument is not valid, philosophically speaking. The fact that when the foetus is born he or she has certain protection does not entail that therefore he or she must have that same protection before birth.
Click to expand...
One of the definitions of a civilized society is that it protects its weakest members. Who is weaker than the unborn child?
And several of your premises are faulty. How is the mother a “third party”? Therefore her “desires” are an expression of autonomy. Does someone else have a right to deny you autonomy even to save their life? What kind of respect for life denies people autonomy?
Click to expand...
If I were to walk past your accident scene and do nothing, thus allowing you to die, I would be charged under the Good Samaritan Act - at the very least, I have to call for help on your behalf, and if I have First Aid training, I have to assist you until an ambulance arrives. If I don’t, I am guilty of negligence in your death.

If I can be charged with a crime for passively standing by and doing nothing while someone is dying from causes that I had nothing to do with, then how is it that I can then take steps to actively kill my own unborn child, and be considered to be protecting my own autonomy?

What if I think my autonomy will somehow be compromised if I stop to help an accident victim? (Like, it would make me late for work, or I’m a woman, and you look really scary to me.) Even so, I have to do something - I can’t just leave you there to die. It’s not allowed.
🤷
 
Let’s just put this simply. Abortion is never an option for anybody! And yes, that includes those who have conceived out of rape as well.
 
jmcrae said:
One of the definitions of a civilized society is that it protects its weakest members. Who is weaker than the unborn child?
Click to expand...
That doesn’t help us for a variety of reasons. It’s certainly not a philosophical argument.
If I were to walk past your accident scene and do nothing, thus allowing you to die, I would be charged under the Good Samaritan Act - at the very least, I have to call for help on your behalf, and if I have First Aid training, I have to assist you until an ambulance arrives. If I don’t, I am guilty of negligence in your death
Click to expand...
You’re talking about a statutory duty. Not relevant.
If I can be charged with a crime for passively standing by and doing nothing while someone is dying from causes that I had nothing to do with, then how is it that I can then take steps to actively kill my own unborn child, and be considered to be protecting my own autonomy?
Click to expand...
What if I think my autonomy will somehow be compromised if I stop to help an accident victim? (Like, it would make me late for work, or I’m a woman, and you look really scary to me.) Even so, I have to do something - I can’t just leave you there to die. It’s not allowed.
🤷
Click to expand...
You’re right - they are both affecting your autonomy.
Where does this get us?
 
Doc_Keele said:
Well that’s just begging the question.
Click to expand...
The “why” is, Because the child is a human child, from the moment of conception, and it is wrong to kill human children. (They aren’t kittens, and they aren’t puppies, or goldfish. They are human, because they have the full completement of human DNA.)

But if you can’t understand why it would be wrong to kill human children (or any human beings, for that matter), I’m afraid I can’t help you - and I hope I don’t live anywhere near where you do. 🤷
 
jmcrae - argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy
oh, and so are circular arguments

try not to get needly and personal please:thumbsup:
it’s not becoming
 
Doc_Keele said:
That doesn’t help us for a variety of reasons. It’s certainly not a philosophical argument.

You’re talking about a statutory duty. Not relevant.

You’re right - they are both affecting your autonomy.
Where does this get us?
Click to expand...
My point is that our duty to ensure the welfare of our fellow human beings is higher (more important) than our right to maintain our autonomy.
 
Doc_Keele said:
jmcrae - argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy
oh, and so are circular arguments
Click to expand...
How is it a “circular argument” that the reason we can’t support abortion is that abortion is the killing of a human child? :confused: 🤷
try not to get needly and personal please:thumbsup:
it’s not becoming
Click to expand...
Look, the reason we have laws against murder, and indeed, laws of any kind, is so that the innocent person can live peacefully among evil persons. Laws are what prevent the evil persons from harming the innocent person. My purpose in saying that I hope I don’t live near you, if you favour the killing of human children, is to remind us all of that basic fact. 🙂
 
I don’t accept your premises, simple as that. If I don’t accept your premises, then I don’t consider your argument sound. You made a bald assertion. There’s no argument to break down.

You haven’t proven that the duty to promote welfare outweighs the right to autonomy. Go ahead and prove it first.
 
jmcrae said:
How is it a “circular argument” that the reason we can’t support abortion is that abortion is the killing of a human child?
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said, is it?
Look, the reason we have laws against murder, and indeed, laws of any kind, is so that the innocent person can live peacefully among evil persons. Laws are what prevent the evil persons from harming the innocent person. My purpose in saying that I hope I don’t live near you, if you favour the killing of human children, is to remind us all of that basic fact. 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s still needly and personal and argumentum ad hominem.
And also making completely unwarranted assumptions.

If you have a proper formal argument to make fine, otherwise don’t feel offended if I don’t respond.
I am interested in philosophical arguments, not rhetoric.
 
Doc_Keele said:
I don’t accept your premises, simple as that.
Click to expand...
Your affiliation says “Christian.”

Which assumptions do you not accept?

That we have a duty to care for other human beings? (Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to love one another - this means, meeting one another’s needs and ensuring one another’s welfare.)

That the unborn child is a human being? (The science of Biology tells us that the unborn child of a human woman is a human child.)
You haven’t proven that the duty to promote welfare outweighs the right to autonomy. Go ahead and prove it first.
Click to expand...
We are social beings. We depend on each other for our survival.

If you doubt that, try this: Find a deserted place that no human being has ever been to before, bring absolutely nothing with you - arrive there naked, with no books or any other kind of outside knowledge or help - and see how long you can survive without interacting with any human beings at all. Build your own shelter, create your own food, and rely on your instincts alone.

Basic things like food and shelter come to us through the work of other people - farmers, ranchers, builders, and their helpers. We get the money to pay for these things from other people - our boss, if we are employed; our customers, if we are working “for ourselves”; or from other family members, if we are a child or a stay-at-home spouse, or else from the government, if we are temporarily unemployed. We learn the skills we need for survival from our teachers and parents - we aren’t born knowing those things.

Even nomadic persons who choose not to participate in society survive by begging on the streets for money from other people, so that they can buy food and shelter.

Since no one can survive without help from other people, society (which is oriented toward the survival of the whole group, and the production of a new generation to carry the society forward into the future) requires that we prioritize the welfare of those around us, along with our own welfare.

The welfare of children is of particular importance to society, because it is the children who will carry the society forward into the future. Without children, society will die off.
 
Since you haven’t put forward a formal philosophical argument, I don’t have any comment to make.
 
It IS a philosophical problem. It is an ethical problem, and ethics is a branch of philosophy.
 
Doc_Keele said:
It IS a philosophical problem. It is an ethical problem, and ethics is a branch of philosophy.
Click to expand...
Okay. So, I can’t say that the child is a human being, therefore “thou shalt not kill” applies to the child.

l can’t say, society requires us to prioritize one another’s welfare (and especially the welfare of children) for the survival of the society.

I can’t say, Jesus requires us to love one another.

So, give me a clue, here. What am I allowed to say? 🤷
 
I can’t help but notice, Doc, that while you ‘don’t accept’ what we say, you have given us absolutely nothing but your ‘say-so’ as ‘supports’ for your ‘non-acceptance.’

Why is that? Surely you have ‘support’ for your premises and your deductions and your reasons. Why not state them? If you don’t find our arguments compelling, what then are **yours **through which you came to **your conclusions? **

Enlighten us, if you will.
 
I am analysing the arguments from a formal philosophical standpoint. Have I argued for a particular stance on this thread? I don’t think I have, but if I have by all means address my the validity of my arguments and my premises.

Yes, I haven’t necessarily stated the reasons for rejecting the premises - partly because I didn’t think it would be useful. Having seen the way these discussions tend to go in the past.

Please go ahead 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top