N
Nonatheist
Guest
No, they stand on pillars that are not reinforced, my generally philosophy is to not attach myself to single philosophical possition, l usually test a position until it breaks, than l switch it.
- Status
U
upant
Guest
this the pro-abortion group refuses to acknowledge, per their hedonistic lifestyle sex isn’t a choice and the result isn’t mandatory.
no abortion is morally justified, it may be legal but it isn’t moral.
your answers are all over the place, you have no basis and can change on a whim
it is okay to kill one thing but not another because of temporary logic
I’m glad you don’t make the laws
N
Nonatheist
Guest
Point is that if someone consents to sex, they don’t also by default consent to being pregnant.
Only way to justify that is with Catholic doctrine, even Bible is gray on abortion.
l was clear in my theory: More sentience= more moral worth, the more sentience something has the greater justification is needed to make killing/afflicting pain to said being morally permissible(not good)
Only way to justify that is with Catholic doctrine, even Bible is gray on abortion.
l was clear in my theory: More sentience= more moral worth, the more sentience something has the greater justification is needed to make killing/afflicting pain to said being morally permissible(not good)
U
upant
Guest
by default, they know it is a possible outcome. this is the time for choice.
following church teaching would eliminate abortion
but it lacks a basis since as you said it
good day
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l used this analogy multiple time, someone climbs on the trees, falls from tham and gets hurt, would doctors be justified in saying ‘Oh, you should have known the risks, so we will not offer help to you’
Yes, but l don’t presupose that all/most of those teachings are true.
l don’t doubt that my theory has flaws, but those flaws were not reveleated yet.
And while until they do, l will hold to this theory as ‘good’ at least.
Yes, but l don’t presupose that all/most of those teachings are true.
l don’t doubt that my theory has flaws, but those flaws were not reveleated yet.
And while until they do, l will hold to this theory as ‘good’ at least.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
You reject discussion based on fact in favor of your unsubstantiated opinion and mob mentality of my body my choice?
This being your own unsubstantiated opinion is just like fake news.
You present no evidence to confirm this.
You started this discussion on the ethics of abortion with your person hood qualifications, two of them being self awareness and the ability to feel pain.
If this discussion is a mess, It is because what is being presented in arguing my body my choice, is opinion with no fact.
You presented your opinion about what the complexity of the brain presents to the level of pain, feeling, self awareness.
Present us with a better argument then white noise, fake news and unsubstantiated opinions.
Mob mentality = my body my choice, I can murder my fetus at whatever age , up to an including pre immediacy of birth because its my choice. This includes murdering the pain feeling fetus in the womb by lethal injection, and then cutting it up and pulling it out limb by limb. If the mother does not want the fetus killed before this , then it just gets killed by being cut up to be removed, or in some cases as are documented , it can be still removed alive, then left to die, or killed. If that fetus was born , medical teams would do all they could to save it. Where are the ethics of cutting up a 20 week old fetus to abort it, but if born prematurely at 20 weeks, putting the baby into a humidicrib and attempting to save the life of this human being.
Mob mentality at the moment is leading to protest and riot and chaos and threats to safety and homes and industry across the U.S.A.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
That did not address the point I made.Freddy:
no abortion is morally justified, it may be legal but it isn’t moral.
blackforest
Well-known member
If you consent to board an airplane, you don’t by default consent to a plane crash. You board the plane knowing of the risk.
The Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Abortion is a method of killing.
This is your as-yet-undefended opinion. Are you ready to move this discussion forward by defending it?
I already asked you if it was OK to beat up on ICU patients. Other less sentient beings include the elderly with severe dementia and unconscious car accident victims. Do you consider it ethically acceptable to crush and dismember them?
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
I think there’s been too much of this type of response. As in ‘Hang on then, what about this example!’ I think it might be more productive to grant the more obvious facets of the argument rather jump to an immediate (and more often than not invalid) extreme.
Personally speaking I wouldn’t use sentience as part of any argument regarding abortion in any case because it literally means an ability to sense. So you’d have to include an omoeba as being something that’s sentient.
In any case, women who have abortions (and these are the people that should be front and centre of any discussion on abortion) obviously consider the value placed on what she is carrying at 4 or 5 weeks to be less than that which she is carrying at 36 weeks. That is, again, plainly obvious, why women can decide to have an abortion. Arguing that she is wrong in making that decision isn’t going to change anything at all.
There actually may be an argument that you could persuade women that it is wrong and thereby reduce the number of abortions. But I’ve been told on numerous ocassions that accepting a reduction is not the aim. The aim is to prevent abortions being carried out. Not that persuasion would work in any case. The largest group of women who actually have abortions are Catholics. So if the threat of eternal damnation doesn’t do it, then nothing will.
So as interesting as these discussions can be, I can sum up the impact they will have on the abortion rate quite easily: Zero.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
There’s a vast gully of difference between a philosophical debate online, something we sort of do as a hobby, and an actual woman in crisis. The latter isn’t interested in discussing Judith Jarvis Thompson or sentience. She needs very practical financial and emotional resources and support to carry a pregnancy to term.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Our Free Will is all about Choice and we must Choose to Reject Abortion…
F
Freddy
Guest
Indeed. If that was freely available to every single woman who wished she wasn’t pregnant then that would definitely reduce the abortion rate. Not by much, I would suggest. But it would help.Freddy:
There’s a vast gully of difference between a philosophical debate online, something we sort of do as a hobby, and an actual woman in crisis. The latter isn’t interested in discussing Judith Jarvis Thompson or sentience. She needs very practical financial and emotional resources and support to carry a pregnancy to term.
F
Freddy
Guest
I think those who oppose your views might actually agree with this statement. It’s not called pro choice for nothing.Nonatheist:
Our Free Will is all about Choice…
E
EndTimes
Guest
My view reflects God’s View
God imbued all with Choice.
It’s our Free Will
God wants us to never choose Murder of babes in the womb.
)
N
Nonatheist
Guest
Yes, that’s my poin. If a plain crashed and you survived, could doctor refuse to help by saying’ You had a choice not to board the plain’.
‘Thou shalt not kill’ is vague statement, can we kill animals? Can there be death penality? Also, if l had to guess, 2000 years ago they didn’t really see fetuses as humans.
Dementia doesn’t remove the sentience, it just reduces it if it’s severe enough.
Being unconscious is a temporary state, meaning that person had moral value in the past and will have in the future. Because of that, their moral status won’t change because of temporary lack of sentience.
If being is braindead(no chance of comming back), than l would say that it’s moral worth is non-existent.
You ignored the justification part, more sentience=more justification is needed to kill a being.
‘Thou shalt not kill’ is vague statement, can we kill animals? Can there be death penality? Also, if l had to guess, 2000 years ago they didn’t really see fetuses as humans.
Dementia doesn’t remove the sentience, it just reduces it if it’s severe enough.
Being unconscious is a temporary state, meaning that person had moral value in the past and will have in the future. Because of that, their moral status won’t change because of temporary lack of sentience.
If being is braindead(no chance of comming back), than l would say that it’s moral worth is non-existent.
You ignored the justification part, more sentience=more justification is needed to kill a being.
M
mary77
Guest
the only reason abortions were legalized was to harvest fetal tissue for research. Research that many invested in and profit from now. We are in the midst of being harmed now by the engineered frankesntien created biowarfare organisms developed because of research of fetal tissues that revealed how the immune system works.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l have never said something on the line of ‘my body my choice’. l am arguing from a philosophical ground,
You really don’t want to have a dicussion, you labaled me as a ‘baby killer’ and that’s it.
l don’t need to prove a common knowlage. l don’t need to prove that the earth is flat and that the heart pumps blood.
That’s not personhood, that’s sentience. Fetus is not even sentient, argument can be made that it gains some sentience in third trimestar.
You are extremely dishonest, l talked about violinist analogy very little here. l talked about why sentience=moral worth and is fetus sentient.
l will stop this dicussion right now, you are clearly not willing to actually engage in good faith dialog.
l could prove all of those points, but l am not going to, as l don’t think you deserve that much of my time. Even with your lack of desire to discuss this in a civil manner, l was quite happy with other people here engaging in a productive dicussion.
Have a nice day.
You really don’t want to have a dicussion, you labaled me as a ‘baby killer’ and that’s it.
l don’t need to prove a common knowlage. l don’t need to prove that the earth is flat and that the heart pumps blood.
That’s not personhood, that’s sentience. Fetus is not even sentient, argument can be made that it gains some sentience in third trimestar.
You are extremely dishonest, l talked about violinist analogy very little here. l talked about why sentience=moral worth and is fetus sentient.
l will stop this dicussion right now, you are clearly not willing to actually engage in good faith dialog.
l could prove all of those points, but l am not going to, as l don’t think you deserve that much of my time. Even with your lack of desire to discuss this in a civil manner, l was quite happy with other people here engaging in a productive dicussion.
Have a nice day.
E
Elf01
Guest
Would you give a chimp more moral worth than a human with dementia?
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Show me exactly where I gave you any label.
and this
CAF has a rules contained in its FAQ, here is one that relates to your statement
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:
** Name-calling*
** Ad hominem attacks*
** Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content*
** Knee-jerk contradiction*
If you wish to continue this discussion with me, quit the attacks and start backing up scientific claims like this one
and if you are going to continue this discussion with me, when you are continually changing your stance, as you have done repeatedly, acknowledge it.
Last edited:
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l don’t think so, dementia results in a reduction of thinking ability and memory.
To my knowlage, it doesn’t ever fully remove those abiliti
To my knowlage, it doesn’t ever fully remove those abiliti
- Status